Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the borough of King's Lynn, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Internal Air Mail

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what increase or decrease there has been, since the introduction of the two-tier post, in the amount of internal air mail;
(2) what increase or decrease there has been, since the introduction of the two-tier post, in payments to British European Airways for internal air mail carriage.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Six per cent. decrease in weight. Payments are about £10,000 a month higher following revision of our contract with B.E.A. for the first time since 1959.

Mr. Mills: Is it not a fact that at present mail is not moving faster internally? Indeed, everyone now realises that the two-tier system is not working and that mail is not moving so fast, particularly in the South-West.

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot agree. The first-class mail reliability is very good,

with an overall performance of 94 per cent. delivery the next day. The second-class mail performance for delivery the day after that is also very high.

Advertising Agreement

Mr. Ridley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will publish details of the agreement between the Post Office and Thomson Organisation for mutual assistance on advertising.

Mr. Stonehouse: Thomson's promotes advertising in telephone directories. Post Office advertising aims to encourage greater use of the books.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Postmaster-General confirm that in return for this concession to advertise in the yellow pages the Thomson Organisation published a four-page supplement advertising the Post Office free? Is it not an objection to barter of this sort that the Thomson Organisation is less liable to corporation tax than it would be if it received payment in full for these services?

Mr. Stonehouse: Is is a very agreeable commercial relationship between the Post Office and Thomson's which produces a very good return for the Post Office. Responsibility for the Thomson advertising is that of the organisation itself. If this produces a better image for the Post Office, I am delighted.

Addressing of Letters

Mr. Jopling: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to promote the improvement in the accuracy of addressing of letters.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Publicity in the form of leaflets, notices and posters.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that in the appropriate section of the telephone directory for Westmorland there is a pretty drawing of Wordsworth's cottage with the caption—"Dove Cottage, Rydal, Ambleside, Westmorland"? Do not even the hon. Gentleman and his Department know that Wordsworth's cottage is at Grasmere and not at Rydal?

Mr. Slater: That may be so. I cannot say [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait while I answer.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Wake up!

Mr. Slater: Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to answer the supplementary which has been asked by the hon. Gentleman who tabled the Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must get on with his answer.

Mr. Slater: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for the Question that he has tabled, because it gives me the opportunity of saying that, thanks to the skill of our sorters, most letters are delivered on time, but about ½ million a day—[Interruption.] I am saying this for the benefit of hon. Members—are badly addressed and slow down sorting. Half of them have to be given special attention. I shall look into the point the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to their addressing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Wordsworth was long but answers should be short.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the non-existent answer to my Question, I beg to give notice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice of intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment must be given in the conventional way. Other words waste time.

Special Postage Stamps

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General when he will issue a British motor racing stamp to mark the world-wide achievements of British racing motor drivers and cars.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We shall certainly bear this in mind when choosing future stamp programmes.

Mr. Cooke: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind the unequalled pre-eminence of British racing motor cars and British racing drivers in the last few years and recall that it is the only sport in which the British have been consistently pre-eminent year after year and, therefore, they deserve a stamp?

Mr. Slater: Many hundreds of subjects are suggested to us for commemoration by the issue of a stamp. My right hon. Friend has a difficult task in choosing be-

tween them. Inevitably, worthy subjects can be excluded and people are disappointed, as applies in the case the hon Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special stamp on 24th October, 1970 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We have not yet decided the anniversaries to be celebrated by special stamps in 1970, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this anniversary is on the list and is being seriously considered.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my hon Friend for that assurance. Will he pay special attention to the suggestion, since there is a case for getting away from too narrow a nationalism in the design of our stamps?

Mr. Slater: We fully recognise the importance of the organisation and the occasion, but we issued two special stamps for the United Nations in 1965, and we do not normally commemorate the same organisation twice in five years. But we are still considering the matter.

Postal Service (Westmorland)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the standard of the postal service in Westmorland since the introduction of the two-tier system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. Earlier staff and transport difficulties have been overcome.

Mr. Jopling: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General remember that on 27th February the Postmaster-General said that Westmorland was well behind the rest of the country? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the last week I have received a letter concerning an important export order from one of my constituents which involved documents being sent by first-class mail in an ordinary envelope and which took five days to get from Hull to Windermere and a further five days to get from Windermere to Manchester, again by first-class mail?

Mr. Slater: We shall look into the individual case the hon. Gentleman has


mentioned in his supplementary question, but complaints average about three a month.

L.A.C.E.S. Computer, London Airport

Mr. Wall: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the proposed new L.A.C.E.S. computer for London Airport.

Mr. Stonehouse: Tenders are being evaluated and a contract will be awarded shortly.

Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of installing British equipment in a place such as this, which is a great gateway to Britain?

Mr. Stonehouse: I shall bear all factors in mind, but I want to award the contract to the supplier who can provide the best overall service.

Post Office Board

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Postmaster-General what will be the salaries of the Chairman and members of the Post Office Board when the Post Office becomes a nationalised industry.

Mr. Stonehouse: These details will be given as and when appointments are made.

Mr. Baker: Since the Post Office will be in the top league of nationalised industries, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to pay top league salaries, as recommended in the Prices and Incomes Board's Report; namely, £20,000 a year for the Chairman and appropriate levels down the scale? As they are new appointments, may I ask him to pay the full £20,000 and not the reduced level that other chairmen are getting?

Mr. Stonehouse: I shall pay the proper rate to get the best man for the chairmanship and the best men or women as directors.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Deputy Chairman is to receive £2,000 a year, and be part-time, as is rumoured?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot confirm or deny rumours that appear in the Press.

Two-Tier Postal System

Sir B. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now satisfied that the new postal arrangements are working according to plan and with the measures taken to make them understood by the public; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir.

Sir B. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still a large number of people who are not aware of the delays likely to be incurred when the 4d. stamp is used? Will he ascertain whether the delays are causing undue anxiety to people?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not believe that they are causing undue anxiety, because the public know that if they want a first priority they must send their mail by first-class post, and 94 per cent. of it will be delivered by the next day. Over 90 per cent. of second-class post is delivered by the second day after posting. This is a very reliable service.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster General what further plans he has regarding the timing of the delivery of second-class post; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: None, Sir.

Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public would regard any further deterioration in the 4d. post as intolerable? Will he, therefore, unequivocally repudiate the remarks made on the subject in the Wesil Report?

Mr. Stonehouse: There has been no deterioration in the 4d. post, which is achieving the delivery performance that was planned for it. I in no way intend to delay the delivery of second class mail. The standard of performance we now have provides a service to the public, and we shall maintain it.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much overtime has been paid directly or indirectly to Post Office staff to delay 4d. mail?

Mr. Stonehouse: None, Sir.

Giro

Mr. Hooley: asked the Postmaster-General why a minimum initial deposit of £5 is required to open an account with Giro.

Mr. Stonehouse: To provide an initial working balance.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one can pay £1 over the counter at any commercial bank and open an account? The requirement of an initial deposit of £5 is a discouragement to ordinary people who want to open an account with the Giro. It is a quarter of the ordinary man's weekly wage.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not entirely convinced that it is a discouragement, because the number of accounts we are opening is quite good, but I shall consider whether it would be helpful to reduce the deposit, though I am not convinced that it would be.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider every idea for making the Giro more attractive, particularly as his forecast of 1 million accounts has been shown to be totally wrong, as there are only 110,000 at present?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is another Question on the Order Paper about this. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not my forecast.

Post Office Raids (Compensation to Injured Persons)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General on what criteria he decides the amount of compensation to be awarded to those people who are injured in resisting raids on post offices.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Compensation for these injuries is mainly the responsibility of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
If it does not make an award we consider an ex gratia payment of up to £50 for personal loss and damage.

Mr. Gilmour: Will the Minister reconsider the standards? Is he aware that in a recent case a 60-year old sub-postmaster was blinded while resisting thugs, and was given the derisory sum of £25?

Mr. Slater: If it is the case that I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the sub-postmaster received a bravery award from the Post Office. Compensation comes under an Act for which the hon. Gentleman's Government were responsible, and which I think was right and proper, and claims for compensation for injury and damage should be made under that Act. Where we can assist by an ex gratia payment, we do that.

Mini Postal Bus Service (Norfolk)

Dr. Gray: asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to extend the mini postal bus service to rural Norfolk.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We have no immediate plans.

Dr. Gray: In view of the under-population and lack of public transport in the area, and the failure of the Norfolk County Council to use its discretionary power to provide transport for children who have less than two miles to walk to school, could my hon. Friend come to the rescue, think again, and extend his imaginative service to rural Norfolk?

Mr. Slater: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for his constituency and all of rural Norfolk. We have given every consideration to this, and are prepared to have another look at the matter.

Post Office (Chairman)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General when he will announce the name of the Chairman of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: Not yet.

Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay is intolerable? How long has he been looking for a Chairman? It is true that he has approached seven people who have turned him down? As he has not made a decision on the salary, how does he think he can approach people to take on this important job?

Mr. Stonehouse: It would not have been appropriate to announce the appointment of the Chairman until the Post Office Bill had gone through all its stages in the House of Commons. Certain Amendments were considered which would have had some bearing on the matter. I have


been considering the appointment since last July. It is not true that seven people have turned it down; none has turned it down. I have been considering a wide variety of names so that I may appoint the best individual for the job when the time comes.

Wesil Report

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now make a statement on the investigation into and report on the Post Office and its postal services, carried out and compiled by Denis Wesil, the former North Eastern Postal Director.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not proposing to take major decisions on the Wesil Report until all views on it have been considered.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister publish the report, or let us have it in some way, so that we can examine is properly, rather than reading the brief Press reports?

Mr. Stonehouse: I published it, and it is available to all hon. Members if they wish to have it.

Dalton Crown Office

Mr. Booth: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the letter sent to him by the Dalton and District Owner Occupiers Association, he will inquire into the extent to which people have to wait to be served in the Dalton Crown Office; and if he will maintain and improve the service provided by this post office.

Mr. Joseph Slater: A recent inspection showed that even at busy times no one wanted longer than 3½ minutes. For most people there was practically no waiting. We shall do all we can to maintain a good standard of service.

Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman state what justification there can be for the proposed closure of Dalton Post Office, in view of the increasing demand for its services? Will he give an undertaking that in the event of this proposal being implemented, no full-time employee will lose his job?

Mr. Slater: We have to provide services as economically as possible, and we

cannot afford to retain a Crown Office where the standard of service can be given as efficiently and more economically on an angency basis. I can assure my hon Friend that no permanent employee will lose his job.

Postal Deliveries (London)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the further representations from the hon. Member for West Ham, North about letters carrying first-class postage taking two and three days to reach Westminster when posted in boroughs in the inner London and Greater London boundaries; and whether he will now take action to improve these postal deliveries.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have made inquiries. In each case the letters reached the House of Commons on the day after posting and following redirection were delivered a day after that. They were not delayed in the Post Office.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Postmaster-General have a look at a whole batch of envelopes that have been sent to him over a period of weeks, showing that two or three days have been taken for letters to travel from the Ministry of Transport in Southwark to the House of Commons? Surely he ought to give an assurance that a letter can travel from one London borough to another in 24 hours?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am prepared to investigate all individual complaints, but I am not prepared to accept responsibility when our service is 100 per cent., as it was in the cases referred to in the original Question.

Contracts (Scotland)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General what was the total value of contracts placed by his Department in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and what were the comparable figures for Fife.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Records do not go back beyond October 1961. Separate information for Fife is not available but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the value of contracts placed in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the Post Office


telephone exchange equipment is manufactured in development areas, and in which factories in Scotland is it manufactured? Will he say what steps are being taken to encourage the contractors in the bulk supply agreements to produce in the development areas?

Mr. Slater: Contractors which are parties to the bulk supply agreements have been encouraged to produce as much equipment as possible in development areas, including Scotland. We estimate that about 70 per cent. of our exchange equipment is manufactured in development areas. There are three factories making exchange equipment in Scotland, at East Kilbride, Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy, in Fife.

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to Question No. 20 dealing with the Giro, the Postmaster-General said that there was another Question on the Order Paper relating to this. There is no such Question, either Oral or Written. Can we have protection?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise this at the end of Question Time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman protection against what the Minister says.

Following is the information:

Value of contracts directly placed in Scotland by the Post Office


Year
£


1st October, 1961—31st March, 1962—(½ year only)
1,578,000


1962–63
2,323,000


1963–64
4,128,000


1964–65
3,746,000


1965–66
4,387,000


1966–67
4,620,000


1967–68
4,535,000


1968–69 (estimated)
6,000,000

These figures exclude the substantial orders placed under the Telephone Exchange Equipment Bulk Supply Agreement and the Telephone Apparatus Agreement, for which a geographical breakdown is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Sound Broadcasting

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the financing of the

future of sound radio; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has now received from the British Broadcasting Corporation about the future financing and transmission of sound broadcasting: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: None yet.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people would be bitterly opposed to any reduction in the quality and quantity of B.B.C. sound programmes? Whatever the financial consideration, does he agree that it would be a thoroughly retrograde step if the B.B.C. decided to abandon the music programme on Channel 3 and close down the long-established regional centres?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that the B.B.C. will keep that point in mind.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend resist the use of advertising in any of the B.B.C.'s programmes in any proposals he makes as a result of the review? Will he confirm that any fresh attempts by the Greater London Council or any other local authority to introduce commercial stations will be resisted?

Mr. Stonehouse: I was very glad that the House decided to reject the G.L.C. Bill, but I shall have to bear all factors in mind when I consider the results of the experiment, and I would not want to anticipate that evaluation.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: When he made his speech in the debate on the London radio Bill, was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the B.B.C.'s plans, since published in the Press?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am as much aware of the B.B.C.'s plans as any Member. I have not yet had any formal discussions with the B.B.C.

Dr. Winstanley: While I do not depart from the view that the House should not seek to interfere in any way with programme presentation, production or content, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that before there is any change in the system of broadcasting or any demolition of the present B.B.C. regional structure the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot give an absolute assurance, but I assure the House that before any fundamental changes are made I shall have close consultations with the Corporation.

Local Radio Experiments

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the progress of the local radio experiments.

Mr. Stonehouse: Not yet.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most significant results of the success of the local radio experiments by the B.B.C. is the enthusiastic response they have had amongst young people? Does he agree that there has been a sizable increase in sales of v.h.f. radio sets in areas with a local radio station?

Mr. Stonehouse: I agree that there has been a great increase in the participation of young people in the programmes, and that sales of v.h.f. sets have gone up.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve the evident tendency of those engaged in B.B.C. local radio to participate in political controversy, even to the extent in Leeds of circulating Labour Party literature?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not aware of that. But I think that those involved in the experiments are fully entitled to describe their experiences. I believe that they have added a great deal to our information about the experiments.

Fourth Television Channel

Mr. Brooks: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effects upon the advertisement revenue of newspapers of the granting of a fourth television channel to commercial contractors.

Mr. Stonehouse: A precise figure is not available.

Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical to oppose commercial radio on the ground that it might jeopardise newspapers and yet permit a second commercial television channel, which might succeed in killing many of them off? Is not the real priority quality and not quantity?

Mr. Stonehouse: These are points that we must bear in mind as and when we give consideration to a fourth channel and whether or not it should go to I.T.V.

Departmental Advertisements

Mr. Ridley: asked the Postmaster-General how much was paid by the Government to the British Broadcasting Corporation in return for the broadcasting at 12 noon on 2nd May of advertisements put out by Government Departments for more engineers and tax collectors.

Mr. Stonehouse: Nil, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Should not this practice be stopped, since the Minister has now accepted the principle that nationalised industries should not be required to do Government dirty work for nothing? Is he aware that it is remarkably offensive to other employers to have their employees bribed away from them by free advertisements on the B.B.C. which are not available to them to try to bribe away public sector employees?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not believe that there is such resentment. The B.B.C. must be allowed to announce such appointments if it chooses, along with other announcements of interest to the public.

Full Colour Television Service

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General on what date the full colour television service will commence: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: Colour on B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. will start on 15th November in the metropolitan area and will be progressively extended to other parts of the country.
By the end of the year colour on these two services should have become available to more than 40 per cent. of the population of the country.

Mr. Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement that the Post Office has been able to keep the November date will be widely welcomed by the B.B.C., independent television, and the industry, which has invested £100 million in capital? Will he press on with


the extension of the work to the rest of the country?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: When does my right hon. Friend expect the colour service to be extended to Scotland?

Captain Orr: And Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dempsey: How soon does my right hon. Friend expect all the channels in the north of the country to have colour?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not expect colour to be extended to Scotland or Northern Ireland before the end of the year, but I hope that we can begin planning to have it a short period after that.

TELEPHONE SERVICE

Waiting List, Derbyshire

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Postmaster-General how many people are on the waiting list for telephone connections in the Derbyshire area of Nottingham and Sheffield telephone areas.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Three hundred and twenty two and 248 respectively.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is not that figure much too high in this day and age? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that it is reduced?

Mr. Slater: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituency. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of exchange equipment, but the manufacturers are working at full capacity and have expanded output as much as they can.

Telephone Kiosks (Coin Boxes)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the inconvenience in making long-distance calls from public telephone kiosks by means only of 6d. and 1s. pieces, if he will take steps to convert such kiosk meters to accept 2s. pieces.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. We shall do this when we adapt the coin boxes for decimal currency.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will not the Minister consider doing it now? Because

of the great shortage of shilling pieces, when one makes a trunk call from a box one has to put in 6d. pieces every few seconds, which is most inconvenient.

Mr. Slater: It would be far too expensive to convert the meters in two stages. We have no fewer than 250,000 coin boxes.

Apparatus (Direct Purchase)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now allow the public to purchase telephone apparatus directly from the manufacturers.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am discussing with the industry what equipment could be bought direct.

Mr. Baker: The House will welcome that, but I press the right hon. Gentleman to accelerate the discussions, since this is a sensible reform which will save the British taxpayer about £300 million over the next five years.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not accept that figure, but the discussions are going ahead, and useful talks were held only last week.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Annual Marching Week

Mr. Crawshaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to initiate an annual Marching Week to be held at some convenient place in the United Kingdom, similar to that held annually at Nijmegen, details of which have been sent to him.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir.

Mr. Crawshaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief Answer. Would she not agree that this has reached such proportions that we should do something on a national level, so that we can encourage people to come from overseas to meet us?

Miss Bacon: It is an interesting idea which my hon. Friend puts forward and the Government would welcome any event which might encourage people to keep fit. However, this kind of event would be better if it were organised by a voluntary body.

Education Bill

Mr. Crawshaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will invite the Pre-School Playgroups Association to submit proposals on changes in the law to be incorporated in the proposed Education Bill.

Miss Bacon: I have already received the views of the Pre-school Playgroups Association on amendments to the Education Acts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Dr. A. E. Laurence

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I am at present unable to add anything to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 8th May to a Question by my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 783, c. 118.]

Mr. Lipton: Does my hon. Friend recall that on 12th May the Home Secretary gave an undertaking that he would make an early statement on the Floor of the House. When is that undertaking to be honoured? Will it be honoured before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Home Secretary will be accused of stalling and evasion if he does not deal with this matter before the House rises for Whitsun?

Mr. Morgan: It is necessary for inquiries to be concluded, and I have nothing to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend, that this statement would be made quite soon.

Sir F. Bennett: When can we expect the Home Secretary to make a statement on the case of the Home Secretary?

Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm something which perhaps needs no statement in the House as confirmation, and that is that for many days before Dr. Laurence returned from his holidays, there were police and newspapermen in the neighbourhood of his house? Is this really a very wise way of maintaining security in such matters?

Mr. Morgan: The Home Secretary cannot be held responsible for the presence or absence of newspapermen. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to say anything further that would anticipate the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend.

HOSPITALS

Nursing Staff (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the pay and conditions of all nursing staff in National Health Service hospitals.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is not altogether surprising? Does he recognise that there are a series of problems within the nursing profession as to pay and conditions which were not resolved by the Prices and Incomes Board, and it would seem to be a highly satisfactory solution to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the status, service, conditions and pay of the entire nursing profession to allay the anxieties that are very widespread and particularly evidenced today?

Mr. Crossman: From our experience of Royal Commission I should have thought that those nurses who feel that they have grievances and are anxious to have speedy treatment of them would be dubious of the speed with which a Royal Commission would work.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that only last week he was very sympathetic towards this problem? Has he changed since? Does he not think that unless something is done very rapidly the whole of the Health Service will be driven into the ground? This is rapidly happening, and surely it is up to him to do something about it very quickly.

Mr. Crossman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the agreement which was reached was based on a report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the second part of it has only


just been implemented. It is my impression that most of the agreement is regarded as an acceptable pattern, and that the dissatisfaction is almost exclusively concerned with the problems of the younger student nurses, and, in particular, with the problem of charges for their meals. This is now under my most active consideration. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a genuine sense of grievance here. I have always said this. I am anxious that we should maintain our present very competent negotiating machinery, and yet deal adequately with this grievance.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied with the pay and conditions of nurses? Does he not think that it is a national disgrace? What would he do if nurses were a little less public-spirited and started a strike?

Mr. Crossman: I am never satisfied with the pay and conditions of any of the groups in the Health Service, and I should like them all improved. I would remind my hon. Friend that nurses' pay was radically improved, including the pay of student nurses, which went up by between 9 per cent. and 14 per cent. I do not think my hon. Friend ought to jump to the conclusion that the whole package is wrong.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he has precluded other hon. Members from putting questions, at a time which was most convenient, on what some hon. Members regard as a rather important matter.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (ACCOMMODATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper—

Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: To ask the Attorney-General what changes are being made in the Public Record Office

to meet the increased interest in historical documents; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps he will be along soon.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am longing for points of order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: May I have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that as the Attorney-General is not present now to answer my Question, I shall get an answer at 3.30, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the House?

Mr. Speaker: This has happened before and provision is made in the Standing Orders for this eventuality. If the Attorney-General arrives at 3.30 the hon. and learned Gentleman will be allowed to put his Question. Any more points of order?

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that if members of the Conservative Party who put Questions on the Order Paper had the decency to attend the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the point of order.

Mr. Shinwell: If they had the decency to attend at the appropriate time, instead of attending to outside interests, then it would have been possible for the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) to receive a reply to this Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's point of order would carry some weight if all the absentees belonged to one side of the House. Unfortunately for his point of order, they do not.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to that point of order. If the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had been here during all of Question Time he would have known that a great number of his own colleagues were absent from the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had already dealt with that matter, though perhaps less eloquently.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. It is quite right that there are Members on both sides who are absent—

Mr. Shinwell: More are absent on the other side.

Mr. Hamilton: We are about to pass legislation to ban unofficial strikes. I am wondering whether the legislation might apply to this House. Since it is quite clear that some—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help at all.

Mr. Hamilton: Since it is quite clear that some of the hon. Members who were absent are now present, would it be possible to go back on the Order Paper and give them an opportunity to ask the Questions that they were not here to ask earlier?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We live in the permissive society, but it is not as permissive as that. I want to help the House if I can. The Prime Minister is here——

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask Question No. 55?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: We now return to Question No. 54.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I greatly regret that I was not present when Question No. 54 was reached. I intended no discourtesy to the House. I apologise for this abberation on my part. Perhaps I shall be permitted to answer the Question now.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced in another place on 30th April that accommodation in Her Majesty's Land Registry in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which is no longer needed because of the establishment of District Land Registries, has been made available to the Public Record Office. Search rooms

for 100 readers have been opened there and 15,000 feet of records, consisting of Cabinet and Foreign Office records, census returns and other intensively used records, are stored there. Additional space is available there for further search room and storage accommodation as need arises. The accommodation thus made available should meet the needs of the Public Record Office until the mid-seventies. Plans for longer-term needs are being actively pursued.

Mr. Speaker: Answers, even if late, should be reasonably brief.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I am grateful to the Attorney-General. May I sympathise with him for the Whips failing in their duty to keep him informed of the business of the House?

The Attorney-General: I accept full responsibility for my absence.

Mr. Murray: As more space is being made available for the Public Record Office, will more documents, such as the census of 1871, be made available to the public earlier?

The Attorney-General: I note my hon. Friend's point.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Selective Employment Tax (Reddaway Report)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to requesting Professor Reddaway to publish an interim report on the selective employment tax.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): You said that you were grateful to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate him on his arrival. The answer to his Question is as follows:
My right hon. Friend has agreed with Professor Reddaway that a report will be published as soon as he is able to reach initial conclusions.

Mr. Higgins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that will be before the debate on the S.E.T. on the Finance Bill, either in Committee or on Report?

Mr. Diamond: No, I am certain that that will not be so.

Mr. Cant: Could my right hon. Friend warn hon. Members opposite to be careful, since, although they welcomed the interim Reddaway Report on foreign investment, they were somewhat aghast when the Final Report was published, and it may be that they will not welcome what Professor Reddaway has to say about the S.E.T.?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will study what Professor Reddaway has to say ultimately with great interest, and I am sure that it will be helpful to the whole House.

Mr. Costain: Is it not ironic that, if Professor Reddaway had reported on his study of the problem already, the Government would not have put up the S.E.T. by such a large amount?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend would have preferred the report to have been available, but it is an important inquiry and Professor Reddaway has to be given reasonable time to carry it out. My right hon. Friend could not wait till then.

Mr. Pavitt: When discussing the matter with Professor Reddaway, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the total number of staff employed on this piece of research? Is he aware that it is very difficult to produce such a report quickly unless the staff is augmented?

Mr. Diamond: Completion of the report would be accelerated if the staff were augmented, but it is just not possible to find people of adequate ability and experience to assist.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Chief Secretary give an undertaking that if the Reddaway Report pronounces an unfavourable verdict upon the selective employment tax, he will rescind the increase announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman has asked a hypothetical and highly unlikely question.

Mr. Richard: When this valuable report on the selective employment tax comes to be published and when everybody has had opportunity to consider the, no doubt, very intelligent and valu-

able recommendations of Professor Reddaway, will it be the Government's intention to allow the House of Commons an opportunity to debate the report, although, of course, we realise—as I am sure, my right hon. Friend does—that a debate is to take place on Tuesday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever the circumstances, supplementary questions ought to be reasonably brief.

Mr. Richard: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I wished to know from my right hon. Friend whether we should have an opportunity to debate the report, despite the debate which is arranged for next Tuesday.

Mr. Diamond: As I have said, I regret that it will not be possible for the report to be available by then. The question of a debate on the report when it arrives is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the report deal with the incidence of S.E.T. on particular projects? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traders have come together in Glasgow to spend their fortunes on a new fruit market which would have brought great benefit to the city, but almost all the benefit has been wiped out in a single thud by the massive increase in S.E.T.?

Mr. Diamond: I was not aware of all the facts, but I am delighted to be informed by the hon. Gentleman that some of the citizens of Glasgow have clubbed together to form a fruit market.

Mr. Hooley: Is it within Professor Reddaway's terms of reference to consider the technicalities of the collection of this tax when the National Insurance stamp is abolished under the proposals for superannuation made by the Secretary of State for Social Services?

Mr. Diamond: I doubt that that will be his main consideration, but we shall see when the report is available.

Mr. Shinwell: As there are still two minutes before Questions to the Prime Minister are to be called, would my right hon. Friend explain what this report is all about?

Mr. Diamond: The S.E.T., which stands for selective employment tax.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will Professor Reddaway's report make specific reference to the effects of S.E.T. on the various regions within the United Kingdom or will it devote itself to references to specific industries rather than regions?

Mr. Diamond: It will not be primarily concerned with regions, since that question has been amply covered by the Hunt Report.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abolished the S.E.T. throughout the film industry, will my right hon. Friend recommend him also to anticipate Professor Reddaway's report by accepting an Amendment to the Finance Bill to abolish it in the theatre?

Mr. Diamond: As I understand that we are to have a debate next week in which hon. Members may seek to catch the eye of the Chair to discuss the selective employment tax, I think that that will be the appropriate occasion for an Amendment.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers responsible for sponsoring the service industries as defined in the regulations relating to selective employment tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Emery: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the proposed increase in selective employment tax from the co-operative societies; and what answer he gave.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer works closely together with those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with the industries affected.
I have received seven letters from co-operative societies on this subject. The replies have explained the reasons for proposing to increase the selective employment tax this year rather than increase other forms of taxation.

Mr. Marten: Before we debate the subject next week, will the Prime Minister say why he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers—which is

my Question—as the selective employment tax seems to have an effect often diametrically opposed to the very policies which his other Ministers are trying to implement? Is the right hon. Gentleman really so sure that he knows what is going on between his Ministers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The reason I said that I was satisfied about co-ordination is that I am satisfied about co-ordination. All taxes are bound to have some adverse effects. The hon. Gentleman, who is committed with his right hon. Friends to the abolition of the selective employment tax, now has the duty of finding or proposing how to find revenue of about £600 million a year, which would put up the standard rate of income tax to 10s. in the £ or increase purchase tax by more than 50 per cent., through all the categories covered.

Mr. Emery: Why will not the Prime Minister admit that the selective employment tax on the co-operative societies in the retail distributive trade is a direct increase in the cost of living, and why will not he admit that this tax is defective, damaging and disgraceful?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained by how much more the cost of living would be increased if the same revenue were to be raised by, for example, the purchase tax. As regards alternatives, in relation to the co-operative societies, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech made by a Co-operative Party Member of Parliament, one of my hon. Friends, who said that compared with the S.E.T. the Tory proposal for a value-added tax would make the S.E.T. look like a measure of consumer protection for co-operative societies.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend keep his mind wide open to representations from co-operative societies, bearing in mind in particular the two factors of which he is well aware, one, that they are non-profit making publicly owned concerns, and, two, that they cannot work on profitability but they must work on service, especially in rural areas in the delivery of milk and bread?

The Prime Minister: Yes Sir; those two points were excellently made by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends when they came to see me about this


matter a few weeks ago. However, since the House will have an opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, to debate the matter next week, I think that it would be a little disorderly on my part at Question Time to seek to anticipate what my righ hon. Friends may say in reply to such points.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish a Department to handle immigrant problems and improve liaison between the Government and the local authorities where there is a large immigrant population.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave to a similar Question by him on 8th May.
My hon. Friend was appointed to this specially created post and gives a great deal of his time to the issues which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Smith: But is the Prime Minister aware that many local authorities are not at all happy wih current Ministerial responsibility for immigrant problems or with the lack of freedom which Whitehall grants them in these matters? Should not local councils at least be granted a greater say in the spending of the money which is allocated to them to enable them to deal effectively with immigrant problems?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the need to ensure that we get value for money from this new expenditure in dealing with immigrant problems which was proposed by this Government but was never made forthcoming by the previous Government.

Mr. Winnick: Would it not be one helpful way to deal with this matter if the Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself from those Tory candidates and Members of Parliament who are calling for the repatriation of coloured immigrants?

The Prime Minister: I think that the posture of the right hon. Gentleman is always to dissociate himself in tone from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) but never to dissociate himself from the policy.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister now address himself to matters of substance? Will he not recognise that there is here a matter of great importance as to whether this special allocation of money, which is largely for schools and nursery schools and other special facilities of that kind, would not be better handled for the local authorities through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, so that the Home Office would remain responsible for the control of immigration, but the actual handling of finance would be through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is well experienced in these matters? Would it not also have the advantage that it would prevent anybody in the local areas from saying that this was a discriminatory allocation of money for immigrants? Could it not be handled for the community as a whole, bearing the needs of the immigrants in mind?

The Prime Minister: This is a perfectly serious point, as I recognise, and it was carefully considered. As I announced in Birmingham last year when I spoke on these matters, the Home Secretary was being asked to look at an urban programme not entirely for immigrant areas and making some provision for areas where there is no major immigrant problem. It is important, particularly in areas where there are immigrants, that these matters should be discussed with my hon. Friend who is almost full time on this subject. There is a great deal of flexibility in the expenditure and it would be wrong to leave it to the individual spending Departments.

PUBLIC RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination among Ministers responsible for public research establishments.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this matter.

Mr. Osborn: In order to ensure that research is relevant, what consideration have Ministers given to the concept of a single management board for research establishments on which industrialists are


represented? Has the Prime Minister considered publishing a White Paper or a Green Paper?

The Prime Minister: Unfortunately, because of the cheer which greeted the arrival of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I missed one or two words which were central to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Osborn: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that research is relevant and ensure that research establishments are under a single management board or authority on which industrialists are represented, and will he publish a Green Paper or a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: Research establishments are regulated by independent bodies such as the Science Research Council, and these are co-ordinated by a single body which includes industrialists and others to ensure not only that the money is well spent, but that there is a right priority between one kind of scientific research and another. The hon. Gentleman will have seen a report produced by this body and published not long ago. If he has any other points in mind—and I know his interest in the production of synthetic foodstuffs, a subject which he has raised before—perhaps he will let me know and I can go into them specifically.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister ask the responsible Ministers to make large reductions in the £236 million which is spent on military research so that the £3,500,000 charges on teeth and spectacles may be abandoned?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial reductions made in defence expenditure generally and in defence R. and D. expenditure and of the fact that, partly in consequence of this, but only partly, there has been the biggest increase in expenditure on the social services, particularly the Health Service and hospital building, that we have seen for many years.

EUROPEAN SECURITY (CONFERENCE)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister what action he has taken to prepare a conference on European Secu-

rity as proposed in the joint communication published at the end of his Moscow visit in January, 1968, and after Mr. Kosygin's visit to London in February, 1967; and why the proposed conference has not so far been held.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said in reply to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 929–31.]

Sir C. Osborne: It is now more than two years since the Prime Minister himself issued this statement in London promising that such a conference would be called. Has he made any attempt to call such a conference? If so, why has he failed? When is he to make a statement on this important issue?

The Prime Minister: I have answered questions on this subject on a number of occasions. Following the communiqué in 1967, when we said that we were ready to hold such a conference if properly prepared and if agreement could be reached about what countries would be there, I have had further discussions with Mr. Kosygin about it, and the hon. Member will be aware of the initiative taken by N.A.T.O. in Iceland last year. Since then—and he cannot have forgotten this—there has been Czechoslovakia, which considerably set back the prospect of a meeting of this kind.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the difficult situation which has arisen as a result of Czechoslovakia, it is important that the British Government should make every effort to try to reach a better relationship with the East leading to the security conference which is still essential to peace in Europe?

The Prime Minister: This is our policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is now in Moscow. Yesterday he had a meeting with Mr. Kosygin, the first meeting of this kind, I think, since Czechoslovakia, where we are trying to pick up some of the important contacts in technology, for example. My hon. Friend will also have seen the


declaration, made by the N.A.T.O. conference at its 20th anniversary celebrations, of its desire in a suitable way, bilaterally and in other ways, to ease tension between East and West. However, there is no doubt that Czechoslovakia was a severe shock to the process which was going on.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Mr. Brooks: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce the date on which the transfer of Ministerial responsibility for the education of mentally-handicapped children in England and Wales will be effected.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 8th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 128.]

Mr. Brooks: Are any difficulties arising in the speedy implementation of these proposals? Are any difficulties arising in the implementation of the Seebohm Report for similar reasons of professional demarcation?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any difficulties. The consultation paper asking for the views of all bodies affected has been sent to more than 20 local authority, professional and other bodies which have been asked to submit their views by the end of June, and I hope that after that we shall be able to proceed to make the necessary arrangements and ultimately to introduce the necessary legislation. A great deal of work is being done on the Seebohm recommendations. I am not aware that any special difficulties have arisen, but there is a need for consultation and not much progress can be made until we see the future shape of local government following the report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister can give no estimate when this welcome reform will become effective in the institutions concerned?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. But we can begin to make progress as soon as

we have had the replies from the bodies consulted which are due to reply by the end of June.

COLONEL OJUKWU

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister on what date he first heard from Colonel Ojukwu, or his representative, that he was willing to meet him.

The Prime Minister: The 26th of March.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not that reply mean that Colonel Ojukwu was given unreasonably short notice to attend the meeting requested by the Prime Minister, and was not that a great pity?

The Prime Minister: It was a great pity that the meeting did not take place but the date 26th March was the day before I left London to go to Lagos and it was clear at that time, as I have told the House, that the meeting would have to take place outside the area then controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. The time was a bit tight, but, on the information I had been given, it would have been possible to meet on the following Wednesday, and I offered to fly back from Addis Ababa to any suitable place in West Africa to meet him. It was unfortunate that the meeting did not take place.

Mr. Henig: As the ebb and flow in this war is continuing, has my right hon. Friend any proposal which he thinks might help to bring the two sides together once more in a final bid to stop this disastrous conflict?

The Prime Minister: I have told my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that, so far as outside intervention is required to bring the two sides together, it would come best of all from African sources and, indeed, best from the Consultative Committee of the O.A.U. Since I last answered questions on this subject, the House will have seen with great regret that such progress as was made at Monrovia at the recent O.A.U. conference did not lead to a settlement and that, unfortunately, Colonel Ojukwu's representatives did not feel able to accept the proposals and sit down with the Federal representatives, although the proposals


were accepted by the Nigerian Government. We can therefore only now leave it—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Waffle.

The Prime Minister: This tragedy of a war in Nigeria is a matter with which the House is concerned, even if the hon. and gallant Member is not. He can hardly describe anything to do with this war as waffle.
Therefore, as I have said—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Get on with it. Do not waste time.

The Prime Minister: I would get on if the hon. and gallant Member did not interrupt. I would have finished long ago. What I would have said was that it must be for the O.A.U. now to pursue the Monrovia formula.

PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)

Mr. Speed: asked the Prime Minister from what areas of the country representations were sent to him on the probable consequences of the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1155–7.]

Mr. Speed: Is the Prime Minister aware that the English Report has been with the Home Secretary for four weeks and the Scottish Report has been with the Secretary of State for Scotland for nearly three weeks? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on precedent, these Reports and the Orders in Council should be laid before Parliament as soon as possible? Would he speak to his right hon. Friends about the matter?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will treat this as a matter of urgency, as he is required to do. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this question—the great growth in his constituency, what he said the other night, and what he has written to the Home Secretary about it. Whether it affects his area or not, as I told the House on 17th April, the Report of the Red-

cliffe-Maud Commission is expected almost immediately, and it will need to be studied in this connection.

Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the consequences of not implementing the Boundary Commission's recommendations before the next General Election would be that, after the election, five hon. Members would have to represent constituencies with electoral rolls considerably in excess of 100,000? Since the national average is about 50,000, is not this a contradiction of the democratic processes?

The Prime Minister: This point, to gether with the correlated point on very small constituencies, is obviously one of the most relevant features in the situation. As I have said, the Reports must be studied, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement when he can.

Mr. Hogg: Since it is the Home Secretary's statutory duty to act as soon as practicable, cannot we have a date?

The Prime Minister: I referred to my right hon. Friend's duty. I said that he would wish to do this and that it was his statutory duty to do it. He cannot give a date, but he will do it as quickly as possible. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will be aware not only of the complexity of the Reports but about the relevance of perhaps wide and far-reaching local authority boundary changes.

Mr. Heath: Two points arise. The Prime Minister says that the Act lays the duty on the Home Secretary. That has no relationship whatever to any Report of any Royal Commission. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Thursday the Leader of the House enunciated the doctrine that they should be kept until all three could be laid together. This is not in accordance with the Act, which places on the Home Secretary the duty of laying a Boundary Commission Report as soon as may be when it is received. When will the Home Secretary carry out his duty under the Act?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend answered a Question on this on Monday. He has this duty. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. My


right hon. Friend must not merely publish but report as soon as may be on his findings, and this he will do. Although it may be convenient for the House to have the three together, my right hon. Friend is not required to hold up one for the other two, and he has no intention of doing so.

Mr. Heath: It is much more than a question of his not being required to hold them up. He is required to lay them individually as they are received. Will the Home Secretary do this?

The Prime Minister: I said that my right hon. Friend is considering them and will lay them and will certainly not hold up one for the publication of another. He is required to consider them; he is considering them. The right hon. Gentleman would want that to happen. That is what is happening.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If Questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister are dealt with by, say, five minutes past three, is it necessary to play out time with supplementaries and points of order until 3.15? Would it not be right to call the Prime Minister's Questions as soon as the other Questions are finished?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must refresh his memory. I attempted to do that. One could not, however, do it before quarter past three unless one was sure that the hon. Members who had not only the first Question, but the second and third Questions, were in their place.
It would be wrong if an hon. Member who had a Question down to the Prime Minister for answer between quarter-past and half-past three lost it because the Prime Minister's Questions were taken earlier. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker thinks about these problems.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that we are all grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us about the position concerning the Prime Minister's Questions. But is it not the case, as described in paragraph 55 of the Manual of Procedure, that if the Questions are exhausted before half-past

three you then return to the beginning of the Order Paper and call those hon. Members who were not present when their Question was called?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That has not happened in my time. I must look it up. Going back on Questions is something of which I have heard from long-serving Members of the House. I will certainly look at the matter.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You will notice from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, that
Questions to the Prime Minister will begin at 3.15 p.m.
Could not taking them earlier happen only if the Prime Minister were present and wished them to begin earlier, otherwise they must begin at 3.15? Is not that correct?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the point of order which I answered some time ago. We should not take the same point of order twice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Transport (London) Bill.
Motions on the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 3) Order, the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme, and on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY, 20TH MAY, and WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 22ND MAY—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
FRIDAY, 23RD MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the date of presentation of the Industrial Relations Bill? The last that he was able to tell us was that he hoped that it would be presented before Whitsun. We now learn from the Press that apparently an arrangement has been made with the T.U.C. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what it is.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State be making a statement later in today's debate about the level of contributions to the insurance scheme which will be necessary as a result of raising pensions, or will he be waiting until next week for another well-timed announcement?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be making a statement in today's debate.
It is true that I thought that the Bill would be presented before Whitsun. But that will not happen now. It will be presented after Whitsun.

Mr. Heath: As an arrangement has now been made with the T.U.C., cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly when the Bill will be presented?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am sorry, but I cannot. The House will be informed. There must be time for all hon. Members, on both sides, to have full opportunity to digest its contents before we proceed with Second Reading.

Mr. Carter-Jones: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 200, standing in my name and the names of over 100 right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, which was inspired by the work of Megan du Boisson, who was killed in an accident this week, as a result of which many hon. Members, on both sides, will feel a sense of grievous loss, because she was always gentle in manner and vigorous in deed? Would it not be appropriate to debate this matter next week?
[That this House applauds the skills and technologies involved in producing the Anglo-French Concorde aircraft and the United States and Russian space programmes, but regrets that the same urgency is not always shown in applying known technologies to assist handicapped and disabled people of all ages to lead a

fuller, more independent and comfortable life.]

Mr. Pearl: My hon. Friend's Motion, which has been signed by many hon. Members, draws attention to the great work done by Mrs. du Boisson for the disabled. Without having a debate, hon. Members who add their names to the Motion are paying a real tribute to her work, and the House appreciates this.

Mr. Dean: Has the Leader of the House seen the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services saying that the increased money from the charges for teeth and spectacles will be used for comprehensive schools? Is he aware that this is clean contrary to what the Secretary of State said on 5th May? In view of this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot enter into a debate now. He may ask for a debate on the statement made by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dean: May we have a debate on this next week, or, at least, a statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, to clear up the confusion?

Mr. Pearl: The hon. Member should await my hon. Friend's statement this evening.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has recently published a formidable Report on defence research? Will he provide an early opportunity for this important subject to be debated?

Mr. Peart: I have looked carefully at this important Report. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Committee, and his colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will have to study it carefully. I cannot promise a specific time for a debate.

Lord Balniel: I understood that we had been informed through the usual channels that the Secretary of State for Social Services was not taking part in today's debate. May we have an assurance that he will be taking part?

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member wishes my right hon. Friend to participate. He will.

Mr. Dickens: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 310, standing in my name and the names of over 60 hon. Members on this side, calling for a debate on negotiations with the International Monetary Fund?
[That this House believes that an opportunity should be provided for a debate on the present negotiations with the International Monetary Fund before a Letter of Intent to the Fund is finalised.]
May I explain to my right hon. Friends that the intention behind the Motion is not to have a detailed statement from the Government on the progress of negotiations, but to have a full debate in the House so that the Government can listen to the views expressed by hon. Members on this very important matter?

Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the House yesterday.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the promised debate on the Order increasing the charges for teeth and spectacles will take place? Ought not hon. Members opposite to know quickly when they will be called upon to eat their sacred cow?

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

Mr. Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 307, concerning the proposed closure by Hawker Siddeley of the factory at Shakespeare Street, Watford, of S. G. Brown?
[That this House notes with concern the proposed closure, by the Hawker Siddeley Group, of the S. G. Brown factory at Shakespeare Street, Watford, which will deprive the nation of the technical know-how about gyroscopic compasses and make over 500 people, many of them highly-skilled technicians, redundant; and calls upon the Government to take some positive action to avert this closure, either by re-nationalisation, or by aid from the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation or by using the same method as was used in the case of Fairfields.]
As a full debate was held in the House when the Conservative Government proposed to denationalise the company in 1959, and the Conservative Gov-

ernment gave an assurance to the House of continuity of employment for the work-people there, does not my right hon. Friend think that a full debate is called for by the present tragic situation?

Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend, who represents Watford. I agree with him that this is a very important matter. He is right to draw my attention to it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is continuing his discussions with the representatives. I will see that he is made aware of what has been said today and that he takes careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week he undertook to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the crisis created by the decision of over 11,000 qualified and experienced teachers in Scotland not to re-register with the General Teaching Council and, consequently, to face immediate dismissal, and to ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement? As we have had no statement, and the crisis continues, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we will have a statement from his right hon. Friend before we rise for the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Peart: Since the hon. Member raised this matter, I have looked carefully into it and conveyed his views to my right hon. Friend. I see that there is a Written Question down for answer tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member himself has a Question down for oral answer on Wednesday. Let us wait for the Answers.

Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend will recall the White Paper on the resources of the sea bed, which was produced under his own guidance. Can he tell us whether he will provide an opportunity to discuss this Report as well as the question of negotiations in the United Nations on control of sea bed resources?

Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter and I thank him for what he has said about the White Paper, for which I had some responsibility. I cannot, however, provide time next week. But some day, perhaps—who knows?

Mr. Hastings: When can we expect a further statement from the Foreign Secretary about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke? May we be assured that the Minister of Technology, who is now in Moscow, will bear his fate in mind, too?

Mr. Peart: Yes. I note what the hon. Member has said. It is right that the Foreign Office should be aware of the feeling of the House about this matter.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I return to the question of the Motion concerning the proposed loan from the International Monetary Fund? Does not my right hon. Friend consider that this is the kind of major international question on which the Government should hear the views of the House before they decide on a policy which may be of vast importance to the nation?

Mr. Peart: I do not wish to repeat myself. I thought that I gave an effective reply to my hon. Friend about this.

Sir C. Osborne: As one who signed that Motion, together with many hon. Members opposite, may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on this matter, because hon. Members, on both sides, are concerned lest the Letter of Intent includes conditions that would be generally unacceptable to the people of the country? Before the Letter is signed, surely this House should express its opinion upon it.

Mr. Peart: I would hope that we will have no debate on it next week.

Sir C. Osborne: Why not?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would make a statement when he is in a position to do so. Hon. Members should be patient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On the question of the I.M.F., will the Leader of the House try to get the Chancellor to make another statement next week to explain why, on Tuesday, he said that no approach had been made to the I.M.F., whereas an official statement was issued from our Embassy in Washington on the same day saying that there was an official approach? May we have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman next week to tell us which of those two is right?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement. He said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would make a statement when he feels it right and proper to do so.

Dr. Winstanley: Has the Leader of the House received any intimation from his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip of his intention to move for the issue of the writ for the Birmingham. Ladywood by-election next week?

Mr. Peart: No. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend to do that. It is not my responsibility.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week or in the near future for my Motion on mergers and take-overs, because of the unemployment which is liable to be caused?
[That this House is of the opinion that, in view of the recent growth by the public in the shareholding of companies and of company takeovers and mergers, the Government, in the national interest, should set up a public inquiry into the relevant potentialities of each of the companies to be taken over or merged before such take-over or merger and of the effect of any such proposed take-over or merger on, not only the shareholders, but also on the numbers and kinds of employees in each of the companies and on the British economy.]

Mr. Peart: I know that this is a very important matter. My hon. Friend presses me on many matters generally of Scottish interest, but this is of United Kingdom interest. But we cannot debate it next week.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened to the Merchant Shipping Bill, which seems to have disappeared? Is he aware that we in the North of England in the shipping areas want to hear a great deal from the Government on shipping and the Upper Clyde shipbuilders, and heaven knows what?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Lady says that the Merchant Shipping Bill has disappeared; it has not yet appeared, but it will.

Mr. Peyton: Does the Leader of the House realise that on the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund he is not being asked simply to repeat himself; that would be stupid indeed. He is being asked to give the Government an opportunity to present to the House of Commons their present state of mind, if that is not too indecent.

Mr. Peart: I have already replied to that question. The Chancellor will make a statement when it is possible for him to do so.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On Motion 307, on the closure of S. G. Brown, as the hon. Gentleman who made the announcement and initiated the debate in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House to bear in mind that this firm would never have closed if the Government had not slashed the defence orders and aircraft orders?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merit. The hon. Member may ask for a day on which to put his point of view.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I support the suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite that there should be an early debate on the merits of the case.

Mr. Peart: I replied sympathetically to my hon. Friend, and, if the hon. Gentleman supports him, I think that he will be satisfied with my reply.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Amendment to Motion 296, which was signed by 137 loyal Government supporters?
[Line 2, leave out from 'Party' to end of line 4 and add 'notes how often and easily these decisions have been disregarded; restates the constitutional principle that no British Government can be bound by the decisions of outside bodies; agrees that the sick and disabled who are unable to pay for medical services should have these provided free of charge, but repudiates the idea that these charges should be paid by the American and/or German taxpayer through further International Monetary Fund loans; further notes that the proposed spectacles and false teeth charges by Her Majesty's Government will save only £3½ million in a full year and are less than one hun-

dredth the economies that Her Majesty's Government will have to impose to get the nation out of its current overseas deficit of £419 million per annum; and would welcome details of the other economies needed for the remaining £415½ million deficit'.]
Will he find time to debate the Amendment?

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware of the continued anxiety in the homes of 14,000 Clydeside shipyard workers, and is it still his hope that a statement will be made next week?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I hope so.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: As the Leader of the House promised to give the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill next week, and has now said that this will not be done until an unspecified date after the Whitsuntide Recess, will he say whether the terms of the Bill then will be the same as they would have been had they been announced before Whitsuntide?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is a very skilful politician, but he is being a little devious now.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I understand the reluctance of the Government to debate the increased charges for spectacles and false teeth, should we not debate very soon, and certainly next week, the interesting statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services that from now on the Health Service is to finance the education service. Should not the serious constitutional implications of this be discussed?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give time next week.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Leader of the House say when we shall have the opportunity to debate the Prayer to annul the Order increasing air navigation charges at certain municipal airports?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I will provide time.

Mr. Fortescue: When?

Mr. Peart: It will be after the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. Ridley: In view of its constitutional importance, will the Leader of the


House say whether the Prime Minister will make a statement next week about the setting-up of an inner Cabinet and who will and who will not be members of it?

Mr. McMaster: Will the Leader of the House provide time before the Whitsun Recess to decide the fate of the 12 British citizens who are held in prison by the Chinese, many of whom have been detained for more than a year, with no British consular access?

Mr. Peart: I agree that this is a serious and important matter. I do press my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this. He is aware of the feelings of the hon. Member and of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend sections 37 and 38 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Hugh Jenkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

ENTERTAINMENT EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies in entertainment; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Hugh Jenkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

Bill to amend the law relating to divorce and matrimonial causes in England and Wales, presented by Mr. Bruce Campbell; supported by Sir Lionel Heald, and Dame Irene Ward; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

Orders of the Day — HOUSING PROGRAMME

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the failure of Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their housing programme; and deplores the impact of Government policies upon the costs of mortgages and house-building.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Walker: During recent months we have had several debates about the failure of the Government's housing programme. Today, I believe for the first time, the Government have decided to move an Amendment to our Motion. The significant thing about the Amendment is that it does nothing to answer our charge that the Government have failed to fulfil their programme. It does not comment upon the rise in the cost of mortgages and it does nothing to counteract the charge of the very substantial increase in the cost of house-building. It links together a series of Government measures and actions which the Government hope will collectively provide them with an excuse for their failure to fulfil their housing target, to keep down the cost of mortgages and to keep down the price of houses.
Before dealing with the Motion, I will refer to what is contained in the Amendment. It contains several comments about the improvement grants and matters contained in the recent Housing Bill. As the Minister knows, both sides of the House welcomed the Bill, and I hope that he will agree that both sides of the Standing Committee were constructive and helpful in the passage of the Bill. We approve of the spirit of what the Government endeavoured to do in that Bill, although we have criticisms of the detail.
The first comment in the Amendment on the number of houses built has the general theme, "We as a Government


have built more houses than the Tories built." Probably every Government this century has been able to claim that; it is not an original claim. Doubtless, in the brief for his speech the Minister has the usual figures showing how many more houses the Government completed in their first four years than were completed in the last four years of Conservative Government. If one compares those statistics with the increase in house-building during the first four years of the Tory Government and the last four years of the Labour Government in 1951, the graph of improvement is devastatingly better. That sort of argument will not provide comfort to those who voted Labour at the last election in the belief that there would be more houses at cheaper prices and mortgages at lower cost.
The Minister has the audacity to mention the rent rebate schemes, and I suggest that the Government have responsibly encouraged those. If the Government have encouraged them nationally by guidance to local authorities, the Labour Party and the country have fought them like mad. In the recent local authority elections, the Labour Party at Jarrow put through the letter box of every council house in that constituency on the eve of poll a leaflet saying that at a special meeting of Jarrow Council on 9th December, 1965, Councillor Mr. Bolam moved a motion as follows:
'That the Council start to operate in the Borough of Jarrow a differential rent scheme.' Voting for, six Conservatives; voting against, 16 Labour. This was defeated by a Labour majority. We leave it to you to realise what will happen if the Tories should happen to get control.
Those are the two faces which the Labour Party puts on rent rebate schemes.
The Government Amendment refers to the domestic subsidy as something which has assisted ratepayers—one might say at the expense of commerce and industry—in spite of the fact that domestic rates are 25 per cent. higher than they were when Labour came to power. And there is every indication that there will be a substantial rise in the coming year.
As for the volume of houses, which is a matter I shall be exploring in the de-

bate, the Government came to power on the firm pledge of 500,000 houses a year. I could spend a good deal of time reciting the great promises made by the Prime Minister, by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government and, indeed, by every Labour candidate, during that election campaign. I inquire of the Minister why the position has changed so rapidly.
I wish to examine the shifting that has taken place in the Labour Party on this subject. During the election the country was given the firm pledge of 500,000 houses. In December, 1966, the Prime Minister, at the Dispatch Box, challenged whether they were still to fulfil the target, repeated the firm pledge of 500,000 houses.
In September, 1967, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government proclaimed, "We are on target". The target was still 500,000 houses. At the time of devaluation in November, 1967, the Prime Minister announced in the House that the priority programme of housing would not be affected by devaluation—a firm, categorical statement. Then, in January, 1968, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and said that there would be an adjustment of the 500,000 target as a result of devaluation. That contradicted what the Prime Minister had said.
The Prime Minister was then questioned on this topic. When he was asked by how much the programme would be affected, he made a statement typical of the Prime Minister, in that when one looked at the small print it could be interpreted in a different way. But there is no doubt what he wished to convey to the country. For in that statement he gave the clear indication that in his view the target would fall short by 16,500 houses. To quote his words in the House on 18th January:
On the question of the housing programme, in relation to targets the matter has been dealt with by my hon. Friends and myself. There is a cut of 16,500 houses in each of the two years, as compared with the 500,000 target. It is our view that to this extent it will be that much more difficult to reach the 500,000 target; it will be 16,000 houses more difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1947.]
If the Prime Minister's words hold any validity today, I challenge the Minister of Housing to state categorically that the


new target will be over 483,500. If it is that target the Minister knows that with the present position of housing starts it will be quite impossible to fulfil.
From that moment onwards the Government started to shift their position. The number of housing starts began to go into decline. Now we are seeing statements from the present Minister that, as a result of devaluation and a reappraisal of the nation's housing needs, we no longer have a 500,000 target. If he has made the reappraisal, let us have the new target.
When challenged on this the Minister says, "We are unwilling to project the target that far ahead." Yet the Government were willing to project the target five years ahead when they wanted the votes of the country. There was a firm pledge of 500,000 made by the Prime Minister which he said was not a pledge lightly given—a pledge which they have broken. They now try to provide excuses as to why there has been a reappraisal. Let us have today from the Minister a clear statement of what is the revised housing target.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to what is actually happening to the programme, and I assure the House that the figures are startingly bad. The Government rest on the fact that last year's completions were a record and went over the 400,000 figure. Ministers continue to make speeches up and down the country on this theme.
The important consideration for the future is the number of starts. Let us look at housing starts year by year since Labour came in. Housing starts in 1964, the last year of a Conservative Government, were 426,000; in 1965, they were 392,000; and, in 1966, 379,000. Then, in 1967—due primarily to the betterment levy, which provoked developers to starts in the phase before the levy arose to avoid paying the levy, as they were entitled to do—there was a sudden boost in starts to 447,000. It is that boost in the starts which produced the good completion figures of last year.
Look at what has happened since then. In 1967, 447,000; in 1968, 394,000—a drop of 50,000. That would be bad enough, but look at what is happening during the first quarter of this year. The starts during that quarter were only

70,000—20,000 down on the first quarter last year. Indeed, the number of housing starts in the first quarter of this year, by a Government pledged to build 500,000 houses a year, was 27,000 less than in the first quarter of 1964, when the Conservatives were in office. This is the sort of drop which we are seeing in housing starts all the time.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Would the hon. Member agree to break down those figures into figures for private houses and those for local authority houses?

Mr. Walker: As far as these figures are concerned, local authority housing in the first quarter of 1964, under the Conservatives, amounted to 45,000. For the first quarter of this year the figure is 35,000.

Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer I am giving, but he must listen.
For the first quarter of 1964, under the Conservatives, there were 45,000 local authority houses; under the Socialists, 35,000. As to private enterprise houses in the first quarter, 54,000 under the Conservatives; under the Socialists 35,000. They are the figures of starts.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member earlier gave the figures of starts in 1966, 1967 and 1968. For the purposes of comparison would he give a breakdown as between local authority and private housing starts in 1967–68, which is a most significant figure?

Mr. Walker: There is significance in the figures. Starts both in public and private building are going down year by year. They went down from 213,000 to 194,000 and from 233,000 to 200,000. They are the figures.

Mr. W. Howie: rose—

Mr. Walker: In all fairness, I have given way twice.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that we are engaged on a debate.

Mr. Walker: I realise that these figures must be depressing for hon. Members opposite, because in every sphere of starts they show a decline.
I will compare what has happened in the housing programme with what people were promised by the Labour Government. The words of the Prime Minister were that the housing programme would go up year by year until, by 1970, it reached 500,000 a year. If he had fulfilled that promise and achieved that objective as compared with what he will achieve under present targets, the Labour Government will have built 261,000 more houses by 1970 than they are to build in the present programme.
They have, therefore, fallen short of their target by a large figure. The Minister is often happy to quote an example of town populations. They have fallen short by an equivalent to the whole population of Bradford, Ipswich, Colchester and Worcester—a name which I add with some pleasure. A population equal to the size of those four towns and cities will not be rehoused by 1970 but would have been rehoused had the Labour Government fulfilled their housing promise to build 500,000 houses a year. That is the extent to which they have failed.
Let us look at our second charge—that about mortgages. This difficulty will severely affect the programme over the coming months. The problem is whether people can afford to buy houses. We know the promises. There is no need for me again to give a recital of all the Ministerial promises of lower mortgage rates. Whether the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said 3 per cent. or not, every other member of the present Cabinet, without exception, promised lower interest rates for house purchase. All they have done is to introduce the mortgage option scheme—and 94 per cent. of the people with mortgages have decided that that has no attraction to them at all. For 94 per cent. of the people with mortgages the Government have done nothing but increase the mortgage rate year by year.
The true problem arises when the relationship between the cost of a mortgage and the average industrial wage gets so much out of line that the person with an average industrial wage cannot buy a home of his own. I will illustrate to what extent this has happened. The average price of a new house in October, 1964, was £3,500. Today, it is £4,500. The

mortgage rate then was 6 per cent. and today it is 8½ per cent. Average industrial earnings in October, 1964, were £18 6s. 4d. a week. Today, the figure is £23. The monthly repayments needed to repay a mortgage for the average-priced new house in October, 1964, were £18 2s. 2d. Today, the figure is £29 8s. That is the difference. Industrial earnings have risen by 27 per cent. and the cost of mortgage repayments on the average-priced new house has risen by 60 per cent.
Hon. Members know that when a man asks a building society for a mortgage they frequently suggest the formula that the weekly wage should equal the monthly repayments. That is the most common yardstick which they use. On the figures which I have given, in 1964 it was possible for the man to buy a house—industrial wages £18 6s. 4d. and mortgage repayments £18 2s. 2d. It was possible. In 1969, after four years of the Socialist Government, industrial wages are £23 a week and mortgage repayments are £29 8s. a month. It is impossible. That is the problem which will arise.
What do these people do? They cannot get a mortgage from a building society. They can go to the council chambers and put them names on the housing list. They add to the housing list. If they are newly married, with perhaps one child or no children, they have little chance of being rehoused from many of the lists throughout the country. If they have children they almost certainly cannot obtain privately-rented accommodation. That is the desperate plight facing thousands of young couples after four years of the Labour Government. They are given no hope of buying a home of their own and they have no chance of getting a council house because of the length of the queues in many areas.
We see what happens: they move into overcrowded conditions, families are broken up and there is despair. That will happen on an increasing scale as long as these conditions continue. The broken promises about mortgages are well known to everybody, but the extent to which this will aggravate the housing problem and the extent to which it will slow down the number of new housing starts in the months to come will do immense damage to the solution of the housing problem of the country.
The third part of the Motion deals with the cost of house building. The Government have done nothing to ease that. They have added burdens constantly to the building industry. They have added the burden of the enormous cost of borrowing. They have added the burden of Selective Employment Tax which has penalised this industry from the beginning more than most. It has been wrongly rated as a service industry from the beginning, and considerable damage has been done. All the various provisions of the last Budget, it is estimated, will probably add £100 to the average price of a new house. That is a further burden on the £1,000 per house which the Government have already added to the price of the average new house since they have been in power.
The Government probably won more votes at the last election on the promise of more houses, cheaper houses and lower mortgage rates than on any other single issue. Yet if we judge the Government by those criteria, they have failed to fulfil their promise on the number of houses to be built, they have blatantly failed to fulfil their promise on the cost of mortgages and they have failed to provide either cheaper houses or cheaper land. Their instrument of achieving cheaper land was the Land Commission, and all that that has done is to put up the price of land and to cause a great deal of hardship throughout the country.
That is the combined effect of their failures on the major issues of housing. I grant that the Government have endeavoured to pass some important legislation. I do not underestimate provisions concerning compulsory purchase, better compensation, improvement grants and similar provisions, but at the basic core of the housing problem they have failed miserably.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I agree completely with the hon. Member about the tragedy of young families and the difficulties which they have to bear. But does he not acknowledge that the Labour Government have built 2 million houses since they came into power? If so, is not that the equivalent of the population of the City of London?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman likes those comparisons. But the Labour Government promised to build

far more. When they came into office they promised to build 500,000 houses a year by 1970.
That was a promise which the Minister as late as 1967 said was a realistic promise and programme. Why did he say that it was realistic? Because when the Labour Government took over the Ministry of Housing there were 434,000 houses under construction. That was what they inherited from the Conservative Government. But except for the one period under the impetus of the threat of betterment levy, each year there has been a decline in new housing starts.
Every Government this century could boast that they built more houses than the previous Government, and for a nation such as ours I hope that that will always remain true. The measure of the present Government's failure is that by 1970 they will have built 231,000 houses fewer than they promised to build when they addressed the electorate at the last election.
The judgment can best be expressed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who was Minister of Public Building and Works and who now occupies the position of Chief Whip and Patronage Secretary. He concluded his speech in a housing debate in the House on 9th March, 1966, with these words:
I want the country to look at the number of houses which we have built, the efforts we have made and are making to ensure that we achieve our realistic target of 500,000 houses by 1970, and our determination to do what is necessary for the people in greatest need. I ask no more than that the country pass its judgment on that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2177.]
I ask the same.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the success of its housing policy, as a result of which it is anticipated that by the end of 1969 two million new houses will have been completed since the General Election of 1964; on its reform of town and country planning; on its welcome proposal now before Parliament for the payment of some generous improvement grants on old houses, for the speeding up of slum clearance, and for the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas


whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help; on its effective action against escalating rents and its encouragement of long-overdue rent rebate schemes; on the provision of a domestic rate subsidy for the current year of 1s. 3d. in the £ in England and Wales, 2s. 6d. in the £ in Scotland; on its recent improvement of the rate rebate scheme introduced by the present Government and of very great value to ratepayers most in need of help; on the increased assistance it has given to voluntary housing associations providing housing by improvement and conversion; and on its provision of option mortgages and the help towards home ownership".
Perhaps I might begin by correcting the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on one point. This is not the first time that we have tabled a reasoned Amendment. Indeed, we tabled a reasoned Amendment on 19th March and we have repeated that practice on this occasion.
This is the third time in the same number of months that we have debated housing. We also had a party political broadcast by the hon. Gentleman which, I must say, was a performance of remarkable, if rather exaggerated, virtuosity.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us yet another opportunity of describing what the Government have done, are doing, and will do in housing. I am grateful, because I welcome any opportunity of drawing attention to the magnitude of the housing problem. That is why I welcome—and I think all hon. Member's welcome—the activities of bodies like Shelter, because they help to rouse the conscience of our people to the difficulties of the housing situation.
The size of the housing programme depends upon the strength of the economy. If our people are to will the end of a larger programe they will have to will the means as well. The Notting Hill report—I am grateful to Mr. George Clark and his colleagues who worked on it—shows that there is no room for complacency. I will not expand on the Notting Hill Report, because there is to be an Adjournment debate on it tonight, and I have arranged to meet the local authorities concerned in the near future. I simply say that when the Opposition turn the searchlight on the Government they should also examine the number of Conservative local authorities whose house building records are less than inspiring.

Mr. David Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend say, first, that the Report showed the value of the Rent Act 1965, which gave security of tenure? Secondly, will he consider extending the Rent Act to cover furnished occupation in multi-occupied premises, because there are a number of racketeering landlords who use furnished accommodation to escape the security of tenure provision?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. The Report raises a large number of matters. Before going into it in detail, I think that it would be right to discuss it with the local authorities concerned. I have already had a preliminary talk with Mr. Clark. Certainly, we will give the most careful consideration to the various suggestions that have been made, while emphasising that the basic responsibility rests with the London boroughs and also with the Greater London Council.
The hon. Member for Worcester showed some reluctance and disquiet at the fact that I might refer to previous statistics. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to put the statistics in their context.
It is right to remind the House that between 1961 and 1964 the number of new houses completed in the public sector was 528,700. Between 1965 and 1968 the number of new houses completed in the public sector was 744,200. That is an increase of 215,500 or 40·8 per cent.
Turning to the private sector, between 1961 and 1964 there were 745,300 new houses completed. Between 1965 and 1968 the number was 841,600. That is an increase of 96,300 or 12·9 per cent. The total number built between 1961 and 1964 was 1,274,000. Between 1965 and 1968 it was 1,586,000. That is an increase of 312,000, or 24 per cent. over the preceding four years. I have no doubt that when the five-year figures are available they will show a still bigger increase.
I should like the House to remember that these houses are being built to a significantly higher standard than the houses completed between 1961 and 1964. If we had been prepared to continue to tolerate the poorer standards which characterised house building under the Conservative Government, I believe that we


would have completed between 50,000 and 100,000 more.
I remind the House, before leaving this point, that during that time we have achieved record figures for slum clearance as well. If that is a record of failure, I can only say that nothing fails like success. If that is a failure, the more failures there are the better it will be.
I turn now to the immediate situation. The hon. Member for Worcester referred to the number of starts and the number of completions in the first three months of this year. In the first quarter of 1969 there were 35,500 starts in the public sector. In the first quarter of last year the figure was 40,000, so we are down 4,500. In the private sector, the number of starts was 35,400. In 1968 it was 50,500, so we are down 15,100. The total of the two is 70,900 this year compared with 90,500 in 1968—a drop of 19·6 per cent.
Completions, also, are disappointing. In the public sector they are down from 45,000 to 40,900. In the private sector they are down from 52,600 to 42,600—a total drop of 14,100. I have described those figures as disappointing, and I am prepared to give the reasons why.

Mr. Graham Page: By mistake, I think that the Minister said there was a drop of 19·6 per cent. I think he really meant a drop of 19,600.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry. I certainly meant 19,600.
The reasons are, I think, well known to the House. The weather in February and March was wetter and colder than usual, and foundations cannot be laid when there is frost. The effect of Ronan Point was also serious, and there had been a slow rate of approvals until the last quarter of 1968.
But the interesting thing about approvals in 1968 was that in the last quarter 75,000 dwellings were approved for tender, which is the highest figure for any quarter. This massive bunching of approvals in the last quarter of the year will lead to an upturn in starts later this year.

Mr. Peter Walker: To see whether the trend is continuing, may I ask the Minister to give the figure for approvals in

the first quarter? Was it not very much down on the first quarter of last year?

Mr. Greenwood: Approvals in the first quarter of this year?

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes.

Mr. Greenwood: It is true that the figure was down. I am coming to that point in a moment.
The House should know that last year the whole of the English programme of approvals for 1968 was taken up in full and that the pipeline of houses approved but not yet started was recharged by 75,000 approvals at the end of 1968.
The hon. Member for Worcester mentioned approvals. In the first quarter of this year, approvals were running at a low rate. That was partly because schemes which would otherwise have been approved in January had to be advanced into December, 1968, to take up the shortfall of 7,000 in London's allocation, and partly because some authorities were holding back schemes awaiting revision of the cost yardstick.
The House will be pleased to know, or at least my hon. Friends will be pleased to know, that the weekly rate of approvals picked up appreciably to over 2,000 a week for the first of three weeks after Easter, and nearly 4,000 in the fourth week. The low rate of approvals so far in 1969 does, however, mean that starts in the second half will be below what one would hope they would be. The comletions rate in the first quarter of the year was low also, and I have said what the reason was for that.
In the private sector the disappointing figures for the first quarter reflected not only the bad weather, but the mortgage stringency which characterised the early months of this year. If mortgages become easier to come by, house sales should pick up, and could quickly lead to an improved rate of starts. The low level of private completions in the first quarter of 1969 is directly related to the relatively low level of mortgage commitments from September to December, 1968.
The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play with the figures of 70,900 starts in the first quarter of this year, and 83,500 completions in the same period. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little selective in his statistics. I should like


to compare our figure, which I say is a disapopinting one, of 70,900 starts in the first quarter with the figure of 53,000 starts in the first quarter of 1963. The hon. Gentleman mentioned only 1964, which of course was an election year, but what he describes as disappointing figures are better than were achieved in four of the last eight years of the Conservative Government.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that that year there were three months of frost; that it was a record poor winter? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to two weeks of frost this year being responsible for the figures he has quoted. He must be fair in these matters.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman walked into that one. I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite jeering when I referred to extremely difficult weather conditions in the first quarter of this year, and even a Conservative Government have to face bad weather conditions from time to time. The point is that for four of the last eight years of the Conservative Government they failed to achieve what they regard as the disappointing results that we have had in the first quarter of this year.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that 83,500 completions had been—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the poor figures achieved by the Tories in 1963, which was pre-election year, and he showed how they picked up in 1964. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a promise that, as election year approaches, in 1970 the figure for starts will recover again?

Mr. Greenwood: That shows a cynicism which is most uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would never suspect me of adopting as cynical an approach as that.
The disappointing figure of 83,500 completions in the first quarter of this year compares with 47,000 completions in the first quarter of 1963, 68,300 in the first quarter of 1962, and, going right back to 1958, completions were running in the 60,000's. The extremely disappointing figures to which the hon. Gentleman re-

ferred are substantially better than were achieved during the period of the Conservative Government. Saying that does not mean that I am complacent, and I am not indifferent to the anxieties about the situation, as I have expressed publicly on more than one occasion.
There is no point in going back to the speech which the hon. Gentleman keeps making about 500,000 houses. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and I make my reply that the figure was realistic until devaluation. After devaluation, with the need to restrict public expenditure, and with the need to divert labour into manufacturing industry, that target became unrealistic. I have said since then that I am aiming to get completed each year the largest number of houses which the economic circumstances of the country permit.
I can sum up the position at the moment by saying that in spite of what I concede to be disappointing returns for the first quarter I do not envisage any dramatic change this year in either starts or completions, but the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) when he said that by the end of this year the 2 millionth house will have been completed since a Labour Government came to power, and that has relieved very considerably the pressure on the housing market.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that the Prime Minister's last promise of 473,000 houses in 1970 is no longer the target?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot quite follow the mathematics which lead the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion, but I shall study HANSARD carefully. We have said quite fairly since January, 1968, that the target of 500,000 could not be achieved. Since then we are aiming at the largest number that it is possible to get in any one year.
That will depend on two factors. One is the record of some local authorities, and the other is the availability of mortgage finance. I have never criticised local authorities who, on a change of political control, think it desirable to reappraise the need for housing in their areas. I think that that is a proper and prudent step for them to take, but what


I do criticise very much is that towns like Bradford and Oldham, once they have come under Conservative control, should decide to reduce their building programmes, and indeed to eliminate them in some cases.
In Bradford in 1966 the number of approved houses going out to tender was 1,264. In 1968 it was four. With any luck this year it may be 147. Bradford had a large housing programme until the spring of 1967, when the change of political control took place. Thereafter, no new contracts were let. In 1966 the Ministry approved more than 1,200 dwellings, and in January, 1967, it approved an estate of 215 houses. Since then only a further 20 dwellings have been approved, and it is now two and a quarter years since the last new proposals for council building in Bradford were submitted. That is what I mean when I say that hon. Gentlemen opposite who criticise the Government should turn the spotlight on to an examination of what some Conservative councils are doing.

Mr. Walter Clegg: rose— —

Mr. Greenwood: I have a great respect, bordering on affection, for the hon. Gentleman, but I have given way on a number of occasions, and I know that many hon. Members want to take part in this debate.
In the case of Morley, the 106 tender approvals in 1966 were down to 33 in 1968, and none is expected in 1969. In Batley the 503 approvals in 1966 are down to none expected in 1969. In Oldham the 1,519 approvals in 1966 are down to 27 expected in 1969. This shows the great difficulty that is experienced if, in areas where we know there is an acute housing need, local authorities decide that the house building programme should be cut.
I said that what happened in future depended not only on what the local authorities were doing, but on the availability of money for mortgages. When we debated these subjects on 19th March and 28th April, we discussed in some detail the reasons for high interest rates. It is no good trying to avoid the issue that the high interest rates operating in this country today are largely a reflection of world economic conditions, but there

has been some improvement in the mortgage position.
I remember how savagely the building societies were criticised in this House for having raised their rates in March. I have before me the latest figures—published today, and seasonally adjusted. The net receipts rose from £74 million in March to £95 million in April—an increase of about 28 per cent. I know that it is still early to be too positive about the inflow of money into the building societies, but the situation has improved. There is a good deal more optimism in building societies than there was, and I noticed, on Tuesday, an article in the Sun headed "Easier Home Loans Soon." In The Guardian today I see that Mr. Brown, of the Temperance Permanent Building Society, and President of the Building Societies Institute, said last night:
There is no real sign of any check to continued growth.
I believe that there is growing confidence in the building society world. I want once again to place on record my appreciation for the contribution that the building societies have made to the housing programme, and for the contribution made by those who have lent their money so that others can buy houses.
The hon. Member for Worcester passed his usual strictures on the Government's option mortgage scheme. I cannot say that I was surprised. He had said before in the House that the failure of the scheme was shown by the fact that 90 per cent. of the people with mortgages refused to take advantage of it. I submit that the success of the scheme is shown by the fact that 10 per cent. of the people with mortgages do take advantage of it. [Interruption.] I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) took an active part in our discussions on the Housing Subsidies Bill in 1967, but those who remember those discussions will recall that we estimated that 5 per cent. of existing borrowers would switch to the scheme and 10 per cent. of new borrowers would take advantage of it. Events have justified remarkably completely the accuracy of the forecast that we made at that time.

Captain Walter Elliot: rose— —

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have already given way five times.
There is one disturbing aspect of the option mortgage question: the option mortgage subsidy is not worth as much now as when it was brought in. Before hon. Members opposite begin giggling too much about that, let me admit it quite frankly. When the scheme was introduced the subsidy was expressed, for the ordinary building society kind of mortgage, as a flat 2 per cent. reduction of the interest charged to the mortgagor. There were good reasons for expressing it in that way. I need not dwell on them now. But while the subsidy has remained as a flat rate the interest charged by building societies has risen. When the 2 per cent. subsidy was worked out the interest rate recommended by the Building Societies Association was 6¾ per cent. Since then it has risen, by steps, to 8½ per cent. When we introduced the scheme a family man with modest earnings, by opting into it, could put himself into a position comparable with that of a man who could get tax relief on earned income taxed at the standard rate. We cannot claim that now. That is a matter for profound regret. It is also a signal for speedy remedial action.
We have given a great deal of careful thought to this matter, and my right hon. Friend and I have therefore tabled today a new Clause, for consideration on the Report stage of the Housing Bill, dealing with this problem. If it is approved it will enable my right hon. Friend and myself to make an order, or orders, improving the option mortgage subsidy. I had hoped for—but had not expected—rather more enthusiasm from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Peter Walker: We are naturally enthusiastic, having pressed the Minister to do this for some months, but is he merely taking power to do this or actually doing it?

Mr. Greenwood: The first thing is to take the power to do things and then, later, to do them. I must first give myself power to do it. Surely, by saying what he has said, the hon. Member is not suggesting that we can do things without having legislative and statutory powers behind us. There is no power in the option mortgage scheme at present to vary the subsidy that is paid. We are

taking steps to do so. Hon. Members will be able to consider the Amendment, which will be tabled as a new Clause to the Bill, and it will be discussed in the House next week.

Mr. Peter Walker: I recognise that power must be taken to do this, but is it the Minister's object to do it as soon as he has the power or when the economy of the country improves?

Mr. Greenwood: We shall do it as soon as practicable after the necessary legislation has been put through. If the House really wants me to do so I can go into the new Clause in detail, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss it next week. At the moment the best thing is for me to say simply that what we seek is a more flexible power to adjust the subsidy in order to take account of changes in interest rates and tax arrangements, for we intend to keep faith both with the mortgagors who have opted into the scheme—of whom there are more than 300,000—and with those who, since the introduction of the scheme, have seen in it a hope of home ownership in the future such as hon. Members opposite did not give them.
That is one new Clause that we are tabling. Perhaps at this point I can say how much I appreciated the helpful and constructive discussion that we had in Standing Committee on the Housing Bill. I hope that that attitude of amity and constructive criticism will persist on Report, next week and when we discuss the new Clause to which I have referred.
Hon. Members opposite will be interested to know that we are also tabling a new Clause dealing with the Leasehold Reform Act. There has been a certain amount of disquiet about the way in which the Act is operating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a keen and sensitive interest in this problem, and I very much hope that when he winds up the debate tonight he will be able to deal with this problem in greater detail than it would be proper for me to do now. I know that this new Clause will be wildly welcomed not only in the House but in many areas outside.
I want also to talk briefly about the use that we have made of our powers under the Prices and Incomes Act in respect of council house rents. I have


rejected 188—that is, about one third—of the new proposals for rent increases submitted to me, and about 1 million tenants in England have benefited directly through the reduction, postponement or abandonment of rent increases, quite apart from the less tangible but real effect that the Act has had as a deterrent to other authorities who might have increased rents irresponsibly.
I want to give some examples of authorties who have been prevented from making what I consider to be unnecessary rent increases. The Greater London Council put forward a proposal for increases in October, 1968. They were reduced from an average of 11s. 7d. a week and a maximum of 22s. 6d. a week to an average of 7s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 10s. The proposals which were submitted to me for a further increase of nearly 7s. 6d. a week, to be made in October, 1969, were rejected altogether. We have also made substantial reductions in rent increases made before the 1968 Act became law. At Walsall the average increase was reduced from 13s. 7d. to 8s. 6d. a week. In the London borough of Harrow a Ministerial direction reduced the average increase from 20s. to 7s. 6d. a week.
I also emphasise that it is the Government's policy that tenants with low incomes should be protected by adequate rent rebate schemes. The hon. Member for Worcester referred to this and went on to talk about differential rent schemes, without seeming to appreciate the difference between the two. This has always been a matter of controversy, on which views have been divided in the Labour Party for a long time, but, since I have been Minister, I have put all the power that I have behind the introduction of rent rebate schemes, wherever they are appropriate to local circumstances. As a result of the encouragement and the guidance which we have given, three-quarters of council house tenants in England are now covered by rent rebate schemes. That is a great step forward and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Worcester was not more enthusiastic about it.
As to rate rebate schemes, the hon. Member talked about rates being higher than they were under the Conservatives. Of course, local authorities are doing more than they were doing under the

Conservative Government, but the real point is that we are the first Government who have made a real attempt to get the escalation of rate poundages under control. The increase has been slowed down, and the domestic element has been introduced so that domestic ratepayers are protected. I am sure that many people will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remark that this has been done, to some extent at the expense of industrial ratepayers, but domestic ratepayers have been helped by the domestic element. This means that, this year, they are 1s. 3d. in the £ better off than they would have been.
We have helped them, but—this is one of the things on which I have never understood why the party opposite was so ineffectual—the total estimated figure for rate rebates in England and Wales this year is between £13 million and £13½ million. This compares with the estimated expenditure last year of £12½ million. The average rebate per householder who qualifies is £16 10s. a year and the estimated number of recipients in 1968–69 was 840,000. That means that 840,000 householders were each that much better off than without this legislation.
I hope that I have shown that I have come here today in no apologetic mood. I believe that our record compares very favourably with that of hon. Members opposite. Approximately 2 million families will be in new homes by the end of this year. There has been a great improvement in the planning system. We have given more generous help for the improvement of old houses, we have given long overdue justice to owner-occupiers, we have provided for an option mortgage scheme and, now for the improvement and amendment of that scheme. One million council tenants are paying smaller rents than they would have paid without the action which we have taken, nearly 1 million rate-payers are £16 a year better off. That may be failure to the Tory Party, but I believe that, to the public, it means not only success but hope.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I am tempted to pursue the Minister along his labyrinthine path in discussing the rent schemes which he has refused to allow. Possibly we could find out more details


in future—perhaps by Questions. I wonder how many of these schemes were necessary because of the restructuring of housing subsidies before the Housing Subsidies Act. There is no subsidy available to restructure those loans, so they are at a higher rate of interest, and, if the rent is not raised, it inevitably becomes a burden on the ratepayer, if the housing revenue account cannot stand a surplus. I may be wrong, but it would be interesting to know in how many cases that applies.
Naturally, I welcome the thought that the option mortgage scheme will be reconstructed. I fear that, when he issued his original pamphlet, the Minister did not know what would happen. It was rather rigidly phrased. I have told him before that some of my constituents were "after his blood". Perhaps, after what we hear next week, on the Report stage of the Housing Bill, they may withdraw their immediate desire to attack him so much.
When we talk about option mortgages and the Government's help to home ownership, I would remind them that, in a somewhat ex cathedra statement when Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said on 12th September, 1963:
By intelligent monetary policies, Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young couples living on average incomes.
After a number of years, that statement sounds hollow. It epitomises the boundless optimism with which the Labour Party sprang into the breach after winning the 1964 election and ever since has shown itself, particularly over housing, incapable of governing.
Those brave words were also echoed by the erstwhile henchman of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) who, in a notable contribution to his party's long list of broken promises, said:
We shall run the economy of this country as it has never been run before.
Perhaps I was wrong in calling that a broken promise, since it has been effectively kept.
What is the result? Building society mortgages are at 8½ per cent. The average wage of the industrial worker is now insufficient to qualify for a mortgage. On 19th March, I suggested that a man bor-

rowing £5,000 over 25 years now needs a minimum salary of £40 a week to buy a house. Imagine the difficulty of that, when he probably has a young family as well. This is a very serious situation.
Following on that, the standby of those who hope to begin home ownership are local authority mortgages, which are normally available to young married people who have begun by buying an older property, before moving on to their dream of something new. That is not happening, because of the progressive reductions in the amount which the Government have made available for lending by local authority mortgages over the past four years.
The figures are interesting. In 1965–66, £191 million was allowed. In the following year, it had dropped to £135 million. In 1967–68, it had dropped again to £130 million and in the following year to £95 million. This year, it has sunk right down to a miserable £30 million. Yet the Labour Party promised to help the owner-occupier by providing a 100 per cent. mortgage through local councils. If that is the Government's "independent monetary policy" of 1963, it is a poor effort.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is not pleased with the Government's performance. We are all aware of the difficulties over many years and we appreciate what both Governments have done. But other figures are more significant than financial figures. Would he give the social figures for the improvements in infant or maternity mortality rates in the great City of Liverpool and in my constituency of Bootle, which, from being astronomical, have been reduced, particularly by this Government's effort, to well below national averages?

Mr. Murton: I am not prepared to dispute that, since I could not begin to know the improvement and would require notice of that question. But, as time goes on, the figures must improve anywhere in Europe, I should have thought.
The Labour election manifesto of 1964 said:
At the same time, we shall go ahead with a sustained programme to provide more homes at prices which ordinary people can afford.
The truth is that the young people will not forget how the Labour Government have broken faith with them in this matter.
I listened with interest to the Minister's words about housing starts and completions. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has dealt with the famous, or infamous, magic phrase, "500,000 houses". I intended to ask the Minister what he intends shall be the target for the next two years. He has been careful this time. He has probably learned from his predecessor and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to be careful about issuing figures. I thought that he would claim that the undoubted improvement of old housing has taken up some of the money which might have been used for new. I do not know whether it was intentional policy that there should be a corresponding reduction in new construction, or whether this is just a side effect—possibly even a smoke screen.
What is the target, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will reach it? He has been rather coy about this, but, if he is not prepared to say, I would guess, without any concrete information—I do not have the benefit of the Minister's figures—that, in 1969 and 1970, completions will hover around the 400,000 mark and that we will not get near the 440,000 target announced in January, 1968. Perhaps we may be told more tonight of what is in the Minister's mind.
I am keen on the 1964 Labour manifesto, which I find interesting bedside reading or for reading at any other time. It made the portentous statement:
It is no good having paper plans for houses if you have not the bricks to build them.
I am told by the experts that we have plenty of bricks—947 million. It is the paper plans which the country needs to know, and not—this may be a cliché, but I hope that it causes some wrath on the other side of the House—paper plans by paper tigers. Paper houses are all right in Japan, but not in England and Wales.
The quotation goes on:
As a result of public acquisition, building land can be made available at cheaper prices".
There are no prizes to be won for guessing that it referred to the Land Commission.
The Government Amendment refers to "help towards home ownership". It is

interesting to note that the Labour Party's 1966 manifesto stated:
In the Crown Land Commission we are fashioning an instrument to secure a sufficiently orderly supply of land".
In terms of home ownership, the private sector of the building industry has been hamstrung by the very fact that the Land Commission exists. It has not provided an ordinary supply of land so far and I doubt very much whether it will live long enough to do so. It has done nothing but force the price of land upwards.
I concede that there has been some reform of the town and country planning procedures. I had the pleasure of working with the right hon. Gentleman in a Committee upstairs on this subject. However, we need a fresh approach to the whole concept of land planning. The Land commission, coupled with an artificial shortage, has forced the price of housing up.
We know all about rising costs which put up the price of the building on the land, but there is an artificial shortage of land because people will not release their land for fear of being hit by betterment levy. In the debate yesterday I gave details of a case which has received much publicity in the newspapers. In this case, a constituent of mine is being assessed for levy when development may not even be taking place. People are frightened and are not prepared to release their land. I appreciate their fears, but this state of affairs is bad for housing.
Similarly, local authorities are not receiving the guidance they should be getting about the release of land to private house builders. I have good reason to believe that, generally speaking, they release land only three years ahead of demand. If we are to get to grips with the house building problem, land must be released further ahead. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter and that the conciliationists will say that the countryside would disappear if this were done.
This is not so because the land in question is already in the planners' mind. It is simply that they will not release it sufficiently far ahead to allow the developers and builders to produce the houses that we urgently need.
We are told that there is a crude surplus of housing. It is crude only because it does not exist. A large number of


houses still require to be built in urban areas to meet the existing shortage. I urge the Government to do something, in the short time that remains to them, to release land, for the Land Commission, with its supposedly orderly releasing system, is incapable of doing the job.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Most people in my constituency will find unconvincing the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite today to criticise what they describe as the Government's housing failure when the housing shortage, which is extremely acute in London, is being made even worse by the action of Tory councils. Most people will be more impressed by the measures that are being taken by Tory councils than by what hon. Gentlemen opposite are now saying.
An example of what I mean has occurred in my constituency, where we are extremely grateful to the Minister for his action in preventing the Tory G.L.C. from raising rents by anything like the figures that it would have preferred. Another example from my constituency is the present proposal of the Tory Wandsworth Council to hand over nearly a hundred council-owned houses to a private housing trust which has no proper system of priorities for choosing people in real need. In this case the right solution for the area would have been wholesale clearance and redevelopment, as was proposed by the former Labour council.
Failing that, it was, in my view, the plain duty of the present council to have at least modernised the houses, which were already in council ownership, and then to have let them to those who were worst off at the top of the priority list, most of whom had already been waiting for years. Instead, in this case only 50 per cent. of the tenants in the houses to be handed over to the housing trust will come from the council's housing list.
That is bad enough, considering the existing housing shortage in London. It is even worse when one finds that grants and loans from public money are in this case being made available to this trust, whether or not it lets these houses to those who are in need. No doubt this housing trust, like others, is a worthy and reputable body, but it is wrong that public money should be used to subsidise

houses unless the tenants are nominated from a publicly accountable housing list.
This situation has arisen in Battersea because my right hon. Friend refused to confirm a clearance order for the area concerned, relying for his refusal on a report from one of his inspectors which, as I have told him, I believe was a faulty report. I will not pursue that argument today because the Parliamentary Commissioner has promised to investigate the matter. However, I regret that, having told my right hon. Friend that I was applying to the Commissioner, the Minister granted loan sanction in this case to permit the council to take action, to sell these houses and, thus, in effect, prejudice the investigation of the Commissioner. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend acted within his legal powers. But there does not seem to be much use in hon. Members referring issues to the Parliamentary Commissioner if his investigations are to be prejudiced meanwhile by actions taken by Ministers.
One method of improving the housing situation, certainly in the great cities like London, would be for the Government to prevent councils from selling council-owned houses to bodies which have no proper priority lists, and for the Government to refrain from making public money available for them to do so.
Another method—I believe that this would be an even more effective way of improving the situation—would be to stop the destruction of perfectly good existing houses, which is now taking place in our cities on a major scale for the building of urban roads. It is no good simply talking about housing starts without noticing that a large number of perfectly good houses are being threatened with destruction.
I do not know how many people realise that thousands of homes, particularly in our big cities, are being destroyed every year simply to make way for new roads. I hope that, when the Secretary of State for Wales replies, he will give the number of houses likely to be destroyed during this year alone for this purpose.
According to my information, which may be imperfect, nearly 4,000 homes are being destroyed—I am not referring to one year, but overall—for road building purposes in Glasgow, over 3,000 in


Cardiff, and many hundreds each in Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and the West Riding. Yet these and particularly London are precisely the areas where the housing shortage is most acute. In London the G.L.C. is proposing to build urban motorways which would on its own estimate mean the destruction of homes at present housing 60,000 people. There is growing evidence that this is a serious underestimate.
I believe that this policy is totally wrong in the existing housing shortage; that it would make the London housing problem insoluble for a generation; and that it is wholly unjustifiable to force people to live indefinitely in the conditions which now exist, for example, in North Kensington—I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington North (Mr. George Rogers) in his place—and Battersea, as well as in many other similar areas, just so that traffic may travel faster.
These urban motorways have a trebly damaging effect on the prospect of better housing. First they destroy existing houses in the way I have described, I think on a greater scale than people realise; secondly they take away—this would be particularly the case in my constituency—precious land on which new houses could have been built; the land shortage is extreme in our great cities; and thirdly they inflate the cost of the road programme far beyond what I believe is reasonable, and so cut down still further the financial and other resources available for housing.
The London Motorway Box project—only one of four proposed rings for London—would destroy the existing homes of at least 40,000 people, including in my constituency some excellent new council housing estates which were built in the last five years.
By all means let us have motorways between cities and round cities, but I do not believe that any case has been made out for driving them through cities, and so causing wholesale frustration of housing plans. As far as I know, Parliament has never taken a decision to sacrifice homes on this scale to roads. Nor, I suspect, has any Cabinet or group of Ministers ever taken such a decision.
Plans seems to have been hatched by enthusiastic though perhaps rather narrow sighted engineers, and have then been light-heartedly adopted by local councils suffering from delusions of municipal grandeur. There has never been a proper assessment in terms of both costs and benefits of these urban motorways from the housing point of view, and of the alternative policies, which might have been followed. That is apart from Edinburgh which seems to have had, with some help from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the good sense and good taste to turn down a proposal to drive a motorway through that city.
If the Government are really serious in seeking to attack the deplorable housing conditions which still survive in our cities, they will review these ill-considered motorway plans and cancel—I say cancel and not postpone; postponement is not good enough because it causes blight—all of those which threaten the massive destruction of homes.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to find more money, whether for the National Health Service or housing, here is a way for him to do it, and for once, instead of incurring odium from everybody, earn enormous gratitude from hundreds of thousands of people whose homes are now threatened by road projects.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: A point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and by the Minister, and a point that was cheered by hon. Members opposite, was that the public are well satisfied with the housing achievements of the Labour Government. If that is the case, it is very strange that 900 Labour councilors were sacked last week.
I found the Minister's speech disturbing. He claimed that he was not complacent, yet it must be complacency to seek to cast on one side the fact that the original target of 500,000 houses by 1970 will not be met. That attitude is disturbing because, presumably, the party opposite thought it necessary to reach that target by 1970. Any shortfall in numbers will not only retard the housing target but will mean that many people will have to go on living in unfit accommodation. If the Government thought that target to be necessary, they cannot


now just sweep it under the carpet because conditions have changed. It is therefore important to realise that the housing programme is lagging behind the target set by the Government themselves. That fact has serious implications.
The Minister said that he had been able to interfere to keep down rents. In such interference there may be an immediate advantage to the tenants, but certainly not to the ratepayers. In the long term it means taking away money from housing, because the money that would otherwise have been paid by the tenants would have gone to balance the housing revenue accounts, and then to increase the balance. Local authorities would then have had a firm base on which to develop.
Even after devaluation, the public purse can no longer provide the houses in the public sector which the Minister himself says are needed. It cannot be done, even by increasing the price of spectacles and teeth, which is to enable comprehensive education to go on. Housing requires much greater sums.
I was also worried when the Minister—and I suppose that politically and tactically he is quite right—commented on what Conservative controlled councils are doing in housing. I suppose that we would speak in the same way were the position reversed. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will not be allowed, as others of his colleagues are, to continue to interfere with local authorities in the running of their own affairs. There has already been interference with rents. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to go no further down that lane, or all the talk of devolution of authority will mean nothing.
The present housing set up has a fairly rigid division. We have owner-occupation, to which both sides are now committed, and we have the public sector, which comprises municipally controlled housing. It is the public sector that give me pause. It is not that the housing standards in the public sector are low or that the rents are too high: what concerns me is the quality of the life of the tenants in those houses.
The legal rights of those tenants are absolutely minimal. They have only one legal right, and that is to receive 28 days' notice to quit. To be fair to local

authorities, as long as tenants behave themselves and do what the local authorities tell them to do, it is very unlikely that they will be given notice to quit. On the other hand, if they do disagree with what the local authority is doing in this respect no court has power to protect them against action by the local authority. Their position is quite different from that of the tenants of private landlords.
This lack of a legal stake in the property has very far-reaching affects. It is very difficult for a council house tenant to move within his local authority housing, and almost impossible for him to move from authority to authority. This is not a political issue, but something for all parties to consider. We are in danger of creating in our council estates, which represent about one-third of our total housing, a frozen society; a society cast in a rigid mould because it has not the ability to move. It is not that it does not want to move. Perhaps it would be good for it to move to places where workers are needed—

Mr. Jay: If this is true, is it not a pity that because of Tory policy the G.L.C. is handing over a very large number of its flats and houses to the London boroughs and thereby restricting freedom of movement?

Mr. Clegg: I do not think that that affects the argument. Transfer from the G.L.C. to another type of borough is beside the point. The difficulty lies in the legal tenure—the rights of the tenants.
I want to see a new system established whereby the tenants have some rights, and their ability to move is not at the will of a housing officer or a housing committee. The present procedure is that a council tenant wishing to move gets in touch with the housing officer or housing committee. He may even have arranged a swop. But whether or not he is able to move depends, in the long term, on the bureaucrat. That means that many families are growing up in council estates and are fixed there for the rest of their lives.
It is not only the question of tenure that makes them so very reluctant to move: very often it is that they might lose the subsidy. If they move into a privately rented house, the subsidy is


lost. We must therefore look again at the way we subsidise houses instead of people.
I want to see a more mobile society, and we should inquire whether local authorities in themselves are the right bodies to run the housing estates. After all, they have many other things to do. We may in the future in the bigger estates have to go into some form of co-operative venture—it is being tried in some parts of the country, and I hope that it succeeds—where the tenants will have some say in their housing affairs.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I go a long way with the hon. Member. People in council houses suffer from the intransigence of committees, but does he not feel that the same intransigence occurs in a vast amount of privately-owned houses? Indeed, most private landlords will not allow any sort of movement at all.

Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. The tenants of many private landlords have much greater rights against their landlords, either through the rent Acts or the leases.
If we can get more movement of council tenants, or have council tenants taking some part in the running of the housing estates, we restore an element of choice. If a man is buying a house as an owner-occupier, certain choices are available. They are simple choices, but simple choices are very important to the housewife. She may want a certain coloured bathroom suite, or a through room instead of divided rooms, or cupboards here and not there. Private tenants, too, can get those things, but it is rare indeed to hear of council tenants being allowed that privilege. What I want is to bring new life and feeling into this one-third of our housing. We must therefore concentrate not only on numbers or on the quality of the woodwork or the brickwork, but on the quality of life that can be offered to our people.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. George Rogers: It is not often that I take time in the Chamber from other hon. Members. I am usually upstairs trying to stop other hon. Members from speaking in Standing Committee. On the occasions when I speak in the Chamber I seem to talk about houses and, inevitably,

about the housing in my constituency, which is a stain and a blot upon the country's record. No matter how many times the question is raised, we seem to be very little nearer a solution, because no authority has the imagination or the energy to tackle the problem seriously.
I know that it is boring for hon. Members when another Member talks about his constituency. I am restricted by the amount of time available before the vote is taken early this evening, so I will not trespass upon the good nature of hon. Members by giving details of the long report which has been prepared by the Notting Hill project under the direction of that energetic character, George Clark. It is because the problems in Notting Hill are so distinctive and because the area attracts dedicated people of this sort that we continually get these references to its housing problems, which may seem to give the area an undue prominence to other hon. Members who have housing problems in their constituencies.
Notting Hill's housing problem is a very old one. It goes back longer than any hon. Member, even my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), can remember. I am the last person ever to blame a political party purely for the sake of doing so because it is not my political party, but I have to state that there is one reason, and one reason alone, for the state of housing in North Kensington today, and that is the complete inadequacy of the borough council in the area. No one else can be blamed, because there has never been anything but a Conservative council in control in North Kensington for the last 80 years. Not only has the Labour Party never breached the solid ranks of mindless voters in South Kensington. As Lord Spens said to me with a chuckle when he was a Member, someone once said that no Tory candidate, however inept, could lose South Kensington. The fact is that the people of South Kensington are either completely ignorant of the conditions of life in the rest of the borough or completely indifferent to the way their fellows in the rest of the borough have to live.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: rose— —

Mr. Rogers: I expect the hon. Gentleman to rise to the defence of the council


in South Kensington, but by the time I have completed my argument he, too, will realise that his party is responsible.

Mr. Johnson Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to approach the matter objectively, will he not agree that it is as unfair to attribute some of the worst slum conditions in parts of England to Labour-controlled councils as I think it is unfair to attribute the bad housing conditions in North Kensington to the Kensington Borough Council? There are big social conditions responsible for these things which go well beyond the powers of a borough council.

Mr. Rogers: I am not at the moment concerned with any other part of Britain than my own constituency. I am concerned with Notting Hill, the area which is specially dealt with in the recent report, and with no other part of the country.
The first speech that I made as a young propagandist was in Notting Hill about its housing conditions. That was over 40 years ago. As I am nearing my swansong in the House, if this is not my swansong, it looks as if my last speech will be about housing in Notting Hill.
If we forget the period before the 1914–18 war when the social conscience of the country was not very alive to the bad housing of the workers, we must seriously consider what happened in the period after the first world war. We all know that up to the end of the first world war workers were still thought of as the lower orders who did not need bathrooms; if bathrooms were given to them, they would put coal in them or use them for such purposes. That attitude was very prevalent. I even came across that attitude when I was a young member of the borough council in Wembley after the first world war.
It was not until the Chamberlain and Wheatley Acts, indeed not until the Wheatley Act which the first Labour Government brought in, that any real effort was made to provide the kind of accommodation that the average working class family needed. It was not until the Labour Party began to dominate the councils in London that the hideous warrens of the poor in the East End areas like Shoreditch began to be cleared away. Just as unemployment was never raised

in the House until Keir Hardie appeared, the housing needs of the people of Britain were not made a prominent factor in housing policy until the Labour Party gained strong representation. The reason this problem has not been solved in Kensington is that the Labour Party has never had sufficient representation to dominate the council's policy.
What happened between the two wars with the Tory borough council in control? Under the Acts that I have mentioned the council built two small cottage estates and one or two blocks of flats. It then decided to have an agreement with the Tory-controlled London County Council to leave housing to the Kensington authority. When the council got that agreement it left it all to housing associations and did nothing itself until after the second world war. The whole of the council's approach to the housing problem was lacking in imagination and energy.
After the second world war, this council was the last council to get under way. When the first report on housing results in London was prepared, the Kensington council was shown to have the worst result. A year or two ago when a report was produced on the housing records of London authorities, the Kensington council had the worst record.
When the London County Council—as it then was under Labour—tried to come into the area to build houses to help to make up for the deficiencies of the local authority, the local authority fought the Council; it objected to the building of council houses on Camden Hill because, it said, this would lower the tone of the area: the value of the houses would fall. Nothing of the sort happened. The value of the houses did not drop by one iota. In fact, the value rose. The people who lived in those council flats were just as well-behaved as any others.
The Abbotsbury Road site became available. We wanted to build housing for the people on it, but permission was refused by the local authority and the land was sold to private developers, who erected the most expensive dwellings in the area at that time, as hon. Members who know Abbotsbury Road well will know. There has been all along this lack of understanding, this lack of energy, this lack of desire to solve the problem.
Now we have a new lot of members on the borough council. I do not think any of them were there when I first became active in Kensington politics. The leader of the council says that he is prepared to do all he can to solve this problem. I am prepared to give him a chance. But I must be a little reserved, because when my right hon. Friend who is now the Chief Whip was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government he offered the Kensington Council the maximum financial assistance to deal with this problem. My right hon. Friend tells me that the council declined on the ground that land was too dear. If this is an argument, the problem, clearly, will never be solved, because land in London will not get cheaper; it will get dearer. This was a wholly negative approach which seemed to show that the council had not moved in the attitude it had had for the last 50 or 60 years. I can quote instance after instance where opportunities to solve this problem have been given to the council and it has refused to exploit them to the maximum possibility.
In North Kensington, strange as it may seem, there are many pleasant places. There are many pleasant squares, some of the nicest in London. On the whole, with the present plans, the solution to the area's problem is not terribly difficult. The borough council has completed a scheme in Kensal New Town. The London County Council, which, I admit, was slow to get off the mark in North Kensington after the war, also had a scheme in progress in Kensal New Town. There are also the Lancaster West scheme on the eastern side of Ladbroke Grove and a G.L.C. scheme more or less completed in the Latimer Road area. That side of the Ladbroke Grove, the western side—which is the spine of the constituency—will not be too bad when the schemes have been completed.
That leaves that part of the borough covered by the Notting Hill project report, that is, the rest of the Golborne Ward and part of the Pembridge Ward down to Colville Square, Powis Square and so on, the kind of area where we had so much trouble.
With drive, an imaginative and large-scale scheme could get rid of the problem in another ten to 15 years, if the Govern-

ment and the council really made up their minds to take Notting Hill off the housing problem map once and for all. I hope that in his conference with the G.L.C. and the borough council my right Friend will see to it that they mean what they say and present him with early plans to solve the problem. If he is not satisfied that this time they will tackle it seriously, I hope he will consider taking drastic action to take the responsibility for housing out of the hands of a borough council which has never shown itself capable of dealing with it.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who spoke about the possibility that the local authorities may not be the best bodies to deal with housing. He has something when he talks about a more democratic approach to the administration of housing, the part to be played by the tenants, and so on. Some villages being built by a housing society in Wales are examples of this idea. They have a large measure of democracy in their administration. We have some very good housing societies in North Kensington. One established since the race riots is doing very well, but we have nothing on a large enough scale. There is the Peabody Trust, which does good work, but it has to raise its own finance. If, in consort with the local authority, the Minister could give the housing societies more financial help and encourage them to think on a bigger scale, they, in parallel with the local authority, might precipitate an end to the housing crisis in Notting Hill.
All who come to North Kensington, especially people who are asked to canvass there at election times, are appalled by the sordidness and misery of these streets. It is time that this stain on the housing of the nation was removed once and for all. If the problem had not existed we should have had no racial troubles, because there would have been controlled housing. Had there been a proper solution years ago when it should have been found, there would have been no Rachman and his kind, because there would have been nothing for them to exploit or, at least, not on anything like the same scale.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to bend his energies and his will to securing a solution to the problem. All of us


in Kensington will be deeply grateful if he can help.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I must resist the temptation to speak about the constituency housing points raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), because, as the Minister pointed out, we have an Adjournment debate on the subject this evening. But I ask the House to take with a pinch of salt some of his statements about his constituency and the Kensington Borough Council. For example, he claimed that the old L.C.C. wanted to build in the borough and was prevented from doing so by the borough council. In fact, the borough council tried for, I think, 10 years to get the L.C.C. to consent to its development of Kensal New Town. While the local authority was keen to get on with the job, it was held up over and over again by the Labour-controlled L.C.C.

Mr. Richard: I trust that at the same time the hon. Gentleman will remember a site called Abbotsbury Road in the borough. I was once the Labour candidate for Kensington, South, and I lived in it at about the time when a Labour London County Council wanted to house 1,000 people on that site. Ministers of the hon. Gentleman's Government refused to give planning permission on three successive occasions, as a result of which one can buy a lovely house in Abbotsbury Road today, but it costs £19,000.

Mr. Allason: The site has gone for housing at the density the Minister at the time thought desirable. We should leave that matter there.
It was the Kensington Borough Council which initiated all the discussions leading up to the 1964 Housing Act, which dealt with overcrowding, difficult conditions and the need for management orders in areas like North Kensington.
I am glad that the debate today has already achieved something in that the Minister has made a welcome but belated announcement of the change in the mortgage option scheme. He has also told us of a further change that he intends as an amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act. I hope that it follows the lines of new Clause 17 which I moved in Committee on the Housing Bill, when the

Minister undertook that he would bring in a Clause on the lines I suggested.
The main question tonight is on housing targets, The Government told us of a clearcut target from which they said they would not be deflected, but the Minister said today, "We will build as many houses as our economic situation permits." That is a sad fall indeed. There is an extraordinary paragraph in the Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for 1967–68 in which it says:
These changes"—
in the housing target—
stemmed from a new assessment of the size and nature of the housing need that had to be met. The rate of new household formation was expected to be lower over the next few years than previously estimated, whilst fresh information about the numbers of slums and the condition of other houses had been obtained in the survey carried out in 1967.
That is apparently a sort of cover-up for the Prime Minister. The Government are now making a virtue out of their utter failure to meet their election promises. They are now saying, "It is all right; we do not need to build 500,000 a year. The number we are building is adequate. If we go on at the present rate, by 1973 we shall have a sufficiency of housing."
I do not accept that. The need is far greater than 400,000 houses a year. The report from North Kensington will show that housing problems still cause a great deal of misery.
Will the number of new houses a year even be as great as 400,000? Under the Housing Subsidies Act, the Treasury must underwrite all interest charges above 4 per cent. for the building of council houses, and it must be becoming very restive at having to meet the high interest rate now covered. It would be interesting to know what the Letter of Intent has to say about this. I fear that the Letter will involve a substantial reduction in the target of council housing because of the high expense involved by the very nature of the Housing Subsidies Act. Therefore, I do not see a great future for council house building.
Let us consider what is wrong with the private sector. There are three things—the lack of sites, high interest rates and high prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) has suggested that more sites should be brought forward. It is a matter of planning. There


is always the great fear that we shall run out of sites, but there are 29 million acres in the country that are not built on. I do not suggest that they should all be built on, but 1 per cent. of that total represents six years' housing needs at 10 houses to the acre, so it is reasonable to bring forward land for housing in an orderly manner and so ensure that at least the sites are there, which will bring down the price.
The combination of high interest rates and high prices, forced up by such things as selective employment tax, makes it impossible for the average worker to buy his home. He is the man who the Prime Minister said would be able to buy a home, but he cannot do it. I had a letter today from a young married couple in my constituency with earnings of £17 a week. They cannot go on the housing list because they have not the qualifications. What are they to do? Where are they to live? They cannot afford to buy a house on a mortgage, and they are living in a tied house. We must change the whole housing situation so that people can afford to buy houses and set themselves up in their own homes.
In 1966 the Government announced that they desired to see 50 per cent. home ownership in new towns. I was very surprised that the Minister forgot to mention this in his Amendment to our Motion. He is always boasting about the new towns. Perhaps he thought the figures might be somewhat embarrassing. I want to tell the House what houses are available for purchase in new towns from the new town authorities. The figures show a ludicrous situation. I am talking about the second-generation new town, which is adequately developed. It is high time something was done to develop home ownership in new towns. I am happy to start with Basildon, where there are 16,000 rented houses, and the situation is under consideration. That is fair enough. At Bracknell there are 7,000 houses, and all are available for home ownership if the tenants wish. But the situation in the other new towns is very different. The figures are: Crawley—11,000 rented houses, 850 available for sale; Harlow—19,000, 125; Hemel Hempstead—11,000, 265; Stevenage—14,000, 1,910; Welwyn and Hatfield—10,000, 284. It is all very well for the Government to say that it is their policy to encourage home owner-

ship and that they want to see 50 per cent., but they do not allow 50 per cent.
The only way to do this is to give instructions ensuring that every tenant is offered the chance of home ownership. Many will not want it, but there are many who passionately want to own their own homes but are being prevented from doing so by the Government. No good will be served by talking about a magnificent policy unless it is put into practice. The experts say that it cannot be done. If it can be done in Bracknell, why not elsewhere? Housing is the most important social service. When housing conditions are unsatisfactory there is the greatest human misery.
In Britain today there are many families with thoroughly unsatisfactory accommodation. The Government are now pretending that their present house-building programme is more than adequate. I do not accept that. The Minister has failed the nation and he should resign. Let him take the rest of the Cabinet with him.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I do not believe that anyone is likely to take too seriously a Motion of censure on the Government's housing record tabled by a party responsible for the 1957 Rent Act. In my view, and in the view of my right hon. Friends too, that Act caused so much misery and hardship that the Opposition should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. When we introduced the Rent Act in 1965 the Opposition did not vote against the Second Reading because of public feeling and pressure.
I would like some clarification about the Conservative attitude towards rent control. There was a letter in the Evening Standard, written by the Chairman of the G.L.C. Housing Committee—a leading Conservative in Greater London—and he urges the removal of rent control. Is this official Tory policy? Will a future Tory Government—if one should come about—before telling the electorate beforehand, remove security of tenure, as they did after the 1955 Election?
If we look at the whole problem of the housing shortage, the difficulties of people trying to find adequate accommodation with limited means, it is essential to mention one or two things.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) mentioned his own constituency and new town. I want to see many more new towns, because we shall not solve the housing problem in areas such as London without many more new towns. The Conservative Party's record on new towns, when in power, was very far from being a credit. It seemed to lack any urge to build any such towns, and I do not think that anyone is likely to challenge that remark.
If we are to try to relieve pressure on London, and get away from party propaganda and all the rest of it, there must be a more even distribution of industry throughout the country. As long as people continue to come into places like London and the big cities in the Midlands, so long will the situation continue. What is required is a more even distribution of industry. The Government's regional policy, carried out with proper safeguards—and I speak as a Greater London member—is the proper one and should be pursued. We all know that there are areas where there is no difficulty about buying or renting accommodation; the only snag is that a person cannot get a job. When I talk about the even distribution of industry, I believe that housing must be linked to trading matters, industry and many other factors. Housing cannot be considered in isolation.
It is inevitable in such a debate that figures will be quoted from both sides—we will justify what we have done since we came into office, and the Conservatives will try to prove that we have done very badly indeed. It is not just a question of figures, of reaching certain housing targets. Naturally, I want to see many more houses built and to see us reach our target of 500,000 houses a year. We hope that this will be possible once the economic climate improves. But this is not just figures. Consider a family unable to get a council flat who cannot afford a mortgage. It is no good telling such a family they can get a luxury-priced house or a flat being built at Brighton or Worthing. I am concerned with making sure that we build the type of accommodation required by those most greatly in need. The policy of building more council accommodation is absolutely right. I welcome the subsidy

arrangements, which make it easier, financially, for local authorities to build.
Some Conservative M.P.s are very angry about the intervention of the Minister over the question of council house rents. I believe that his intervention was absolutely justified. Just before I came to the House my own local authority, Conservative-controlled, introduced rent increases some of which were well over £1 a week—in one go. These sort of increases cannot be justified. I know that the G.L.C. increases were less but I still do not believe that they were justified.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend to bear one particular point in mind, to do with local authorities and council building. I am very worried, like a number of my right hon. Friends, about a few Tory-controlled councils which are embarking on a policy of selling land, which has been bought for housing, to private developers. My own local authority is considering it. It has not gone much further. I am told that the London Borough of Hammersmith has tried to sell a very important slice of land to private developers, and I am glad that the Minister has refused permission.
The situation, I believe, is the same in Slough and Camden. For local authorities to sell land in areas where there is an acute housing shortage is a crime against the homeless. Private developers will build accommodation which people on the waiting list could never afford to buy or rent. I hope that the Minister will intervene wherever necessary. He intervened and tried to stop the sale of council houses, and he received the full support of this side of the house. If local authorities, Conservative-controlled, continue with the policy of trying to sell land to private developers then the Minister should intervene on every possible occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers) raised the question of Notting Hill. This is a national matter. Let me explain briefly how I became involved. About two years ago, following a Private Notice Question about the Davis Investment Group, I was asked by an I.T.N. film unit to visit some of the houses and the


families in Notting Hill, North Kensington. I had known before some poorly-kept and managed multi-occupied premises, but I must tell the house that when I went along and saw for myself the squalid and miserable conditions in which people were living in Notting Hill, in houses which had been owned by the Davis Investment Group, I was deeply depressed. I immediately wrote to the Minister and told my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North.
What has been the position in North Kensington in the post-war years? A number of property companies have bought up houses, not because of any concern about housing as such, or private tenants. All that they have been concerned with is getting the maximum profit in the shortest time. The people who have controlled such companies, who have bought and sold properties in the Notting Hill area, are like black marketeers. They play on the difficulties and problems and the miseries of the homeless.
I spoke to some of the tenants. I asked them if they had applied for a rent reduction. Some had, and, obviously due to the efforts of George Clark and a number of other people in Notting Hill, many private tenants have had reductions in rents. It is remarkable that Conservative spokesmen say that the problem in Notting Hill is due to the Rent Act, to rent control. They say that if rent control was removed, we should not have such a problem. Without rent control the problem would be even worse, because tenants would have no protection or security.
That was the position between 1957 and 1964. Now tenants in Notting Hill have some protection. They cannot be evicted. Where accommodation is unfurnished, the tenant can apply for a reduction in rent. Is there not a case in Notting Hill and other similar areas to extend the Rent Act to cover security of tenure for furnished tenancies? A number of landlords put bits of furniture into hovel-like conditions and such accommodation is outside the Rent Act for the purposes of security of tenure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the position, and recognise that there is a special problem in certain multi-occupied areas, and extend the Act along the lines I have urged.
A word now about the local authority in the area. I have spoken about shady, Rachmanite property companies—these evil men who bought and sold properties for the last 10 or 15 years in North Kensington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North has said, responsibility rests, to a great extent, with the local authority, the Conservative-controlled council, which in my opinion has shown a callous, brutal disregard for these people in North Kensington and particularly in Notting Hill. My hon. Friend quoted the Leader of the Conservative council as saying that the council will consider reviewing its policies. If the council continues in its old way, if there is no change of policy, then the housing responsibility of the borough council should be taken over by the Ministry.
No one can be complacent about the housing position and problems in Greater London. We know that some people still find it impossible to solve their housing problems, they cannot get a council flat or a mortgage.
No Labour M.P. can ever be complacent about what is happening in Greater London. But bearing in mind the difficulties, our housing record as a Government is a good one. We have carried out much that we promised—the Rent Act, leasehold reform, mortgage relief—and I am particularly pleased by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend about the mortgage option scheme. There is much more to do, and my hon. Friends will be urging the Minister to do more on housing. I do not believe that the Conservatives have any right to table such a Motion of censure, and I am in no doubt that it will be decisively rejected.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I have given my Front Bench an undertaking to sit down in 10 minutes, which somewhat restricts my remarks. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) made a typical Socialist speech on housing. There was not a word in his speech, and very little in the Minister's, about how to increase house production. It was a typical Socialist approach—"do not produce more, control more". I should like an opportunity to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman


about the Rent Act. I could develop the true argument and show him the statistics and facts which demonstrate that where freedom of rent applies houses are in surplus, and where it does not there is no surplus. Those are the facts of life.
I think tonight of the people who are still wanting houses, and I deplore the way in which the Minister has turned this into a political debate, not a debate about production. [Laughter.] The Front Bench opposite may laugh, but what has the Minister said which will help to reduce the price of houses or increase the production of houses?

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): Is the hon. Gentleman complaining that this is a political debate? I understood that it was on a Motion of censure.

Mr. Costain: The right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently aware of Parliamentary procedure for me not to have to explain that to him. What I expect from him, what the country expects, and what the people waiting for houses expect, is a lead to show that the Government mean to provide more homes. People are sick and tired of promises by the political parties. They are disgusted with the party opposite which makes promises which it cannot keep.
During the 1964 election campaign—I just make this short political point—when the famous theme song of the Socialists, as they promised 500,000 houses a year, was, "Anything you can do we can do better", some people took them seriously. Some people voted for them. The brick makers took them seriously. There are 944 million bricks available today, enough to build more than the 500,000 houses. As I say, the brick makers took the Socialists seriously, and now we have nearly two years' stock of bricks available if not another brick were made. That is little consolation.
What the House ought to be doing, what the local authorities ought to be doing, and what the nation ought to be doing, is deciding how we can build houses more quickly and more cheaply. How can we meet the housing demand? A great deal is made of the argument that, if someone buys a house, he stops someone else having a council house.

Precisely the opposite is true. Fewer people today can afford to buy houses of their own because of the rising prices; house prices have risen by 7 per cent. a year since this Government came into power as a result of actions by the Government themselves. But those who can afford to buy will obtain a house anyway, and the very fact of their buying a house means that they do not live somewhere else and a house lower down the scale is available. In the same way, if someone buys a new motor car, there is a second-hand motor car on the market, and the log jam is released. People can understand that. But, low and behold, with the inbred envy which is so typical of them, Socialists do not accept the truth of it in housing.
The Government, of whatever party, must determine their function in housing. What can the Government do to help to house the people? They have control of planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) made a good point in emphasising that. We were told that the Land Commission would make more land available for house building, but this week we had the pathetic answer that in two years it has released only 18·3 acres of land. There are 1,404 civil servants working in the Land Commission, this new body which was supposed to do wonders, but anyone who is good at mental arithmetic can see that that means only 20 square yards per man per annum made available for housing—a little bigger than a grave. Can one imagine an estate agent setting up in business with the object of selling 20 square yards of land a year? He would be bankrupt in a week.
The Government must help by making land available. But they will not make land available through bodies such as the Land Commission which have no power over planning. The Government themselves are the ones who, through the local authorities, can control the supply of land. Goodness gracious—when will we learn that the only way to reduce the price of anything is to increase the supply?
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole asked why we do not release land ahead. Why not? The statisticians tell us that the population of this country will be 64 million by the end of the century. Cannot we be realistic and realise that they


will want land for houses? Cannot we be realistic and say, "Let us take a chance and release a little more land then necessary at this time"? It would reduce the price of land more quickly than anything else, and that in itself would reduce the price of housing. If we reduce the price of houses, we at once increase the number of people who can buy. Wicked though the hon. Member for Croydon, South may think it, it is not a sin to own a house. It is a good investment in the country.
Cannot this Government understand how they have added £120 million a year to construction costs through their selective employment tax?

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Costain: I cannot give way. I have only three minutes left. The S.E.T. is a wicked form of tax. It means calling upon posterity to pay for what is spent now as income. The Government must realise that money which is taken from the construction industry, from capital assets, goes on to current account and it is spent as though it were income, and another part of the loans over 60 years must carry what is necessary to pay the S.E.T. This is just another example of what the Government are doing in adding to the cost to be met by posterity.
Those are major matters over which the Government have control. How did the Conservative Party get the housing programme going under Mr. Macmillan?

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: rose——

Mr. Costain: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. They got it going by setting the builder free. For goodness' sake, let the people who understand building get on with the building.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose——

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman is too excited. All right. I shall give way.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the facts. We have built 12½ per cent. more houses for private owner-occupation in the past four years than the Tories did, and we have built 40 per cent. more for public renting than the Tories did.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman should grow up. He ought to realise that it takes 18 months from the planning stage to build a house. The only success which the Labour Government had came at the beginning because they took advantage of the flywheel momentum of housing starts under the previous Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members do not accept that, I remind them that there were 423,000 houses in course of construction when they took over.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose——

Mr. Costain: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his go. There were 423,000 houses in course of construction at that time, but ever since then they have not completed anything like that in any year That is not success. It is failure.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose——

Mr. Costain: No. I have given a pledge that I shall sit down in a minute. I should love to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) must sit down.

Mr. Costain: There is not much we can do politically in this Chamber to help housing. Someone once said to me that it was a great pity that everything to do with housing seemed to be politics. My reply was that housing would be part of politics just as love was part of marriage. But we can help the builders by giving them the opportunity to get on with building. I know jolly well that, when we get into power, my right hon. and hon. Friends will do just that.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I sincerely regret that, by reason of the way in which we order our business, I have had to endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this stage and interrupt what is a most interesting and becoming an exciting debate.
The Opposition Motion is direct and to the point. It accuses the Government of failure to fulfil their housing programme and it deplores the impact of Government policies on the costs of mortgages and on


the cost of house building. Being direct, the Motion attacks on a comparatively narrow front, which I should have thought it would have been easy to defend—if the Government had any defence. By the Amendment the Government have sought to widen that front in the hope, I assume, of weakening the Opposition's attack by stretching their lines, but in fact it is the Government's lines of defence which are crumbling in these tactics and the Amendment is a retreat from the real issue and certainly a retreat from the truth.
I hope that the Government will learn from this debate in future that to set up a schedule of shibboleths is not a good defence. As hon. Members will know, it was the shibboleths of the fleeing Ephraimites which detected them as the fleeing ones.
We deplore the cost of mortgages, a cost which has been pushed up and up over the years that the Government have been in office—1965, after four months of Labour Government, up ¾ per cent.; 1966, after another 14 months of Labour Government, up another ⅜ per cent.; 1968, after another 24 months of Labour Government, up another ½ per cent.; 1969, after another 11 months of Labour Government, up ⅞ per cent.
Now it stands at 8½ per cent., the figure recommended by the Building Societies Association, but many societies—and here I had better say that I speak as the director of one—have to charge 8⅞ per cent. and not 8½ per cent., and if someone happens to let off a small flatlet in his house, he will be charged 9⅞ percent. This week the societies have reached the fantastic position that, because of the Government's general policies, it is so necessary for local authorities to borrow that they are paying 9 per cent. on seven-day notice borrowing. It, therefore, pays the building societies better to lend their money to local authorities than to home buyers. It is cynical perhaps to say that, but that is the sort of fantastic situation in which we are placed as a result of the general policies the Government.
On what further flights of financial fancy will the Government take off? Unfortunately, the apparent fantasies are real. The high financial terms of the I.M.F. and devaluation and the P.I.B.

and letters of intent and the rest are of great academic interest when we hear them on T.V., but they cannot be isolated as matters merely of academic interest. They hit, directly, at that family, the husband and wife and two or three children in a top floor room eating, sleeping and living in one room, the cooker on the landing and the lavatory two floors down, the family who may be saving or trying to save to buy its own home and which finds that, like Tantalus, it is always having it pushed out of its reach by the Government. Perhaps I should have likened the Government to Tantalus and not the prospective home-owner, for it will be remembered that Tantalus was standing up to his chin in water, and that is about where the Government have now got themselves.
Owning a home of its own by a family such as I have described, and we all know many such families in our constituencies, has been made unattainable not only by the increase in interest rates, but by the relentless rise in house prices and therefore in the repayment instalments and in the amount of deposit which a prospective purchaser has to find. In the Motion we deplore the cost of house building, and many actions of the Government have added to that cost—S.E.T., the increase in National Insurance contributions, corporation tax, petrol tax and the rest.
But there is an additional factor which would remain even if all these others were removed. Even if one were to discover a new and speedy and more economic method of building, house prices would still keep up for the very reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)—the big demand and the small supply. While that remains, house prices, even if one got the actual cost of building down, would probably remain up.
The Government have done nothing effective to ensure a steady rate of increase in that supply. They have done nothing to ensure the release of adequate land for building houses. They have only created the Land Commission which in two years has sold only 2·3 acres for house building.
Yet in the Amendment the Government ask us to congratulate them on their reform in town and country planning. If


that means not the overall policy of town and country planning, about which I have been complaining in saying that not sufficient land was being made free for house building, but with procedure it is a false claim. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, is based entirely upon a report of the Planning Advisory Group, "The future of development plans" set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when they were respectively Minister of Housing and Local Government and Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a false claim that these reforms are solely the present Government's.
The Minister based much of his argument on a comparison between the last four years of the last Conservative Government and the first four years of the Labour Government. In comparing these two sets of years, 1961–64 as against 1964–68, he showed an increase of 312,000 houses, an increase of 24 per cent.
Since the last war, it has been possible to choose many combinations of years in that way to shown increases in the rate of building. I will take as an example a similar comparison—the last four years of the previous Labour Government and the first four years of the Conservative Government which followed, 1948–51 compared with 1952–55. In the last four years of the Labour Governemt there were built 818,245 houses, while in the first four years of the Conservative Government which followed the figure was 1,223,901 houses, an increase of 405,656, an increase not of 24 per cent., but of 50 per cent. over the efforts of the previous Labour Government.
But it is not the historical figures which concern us now. It is the current figures which are important, and that surely is why we are having this debate. The Minister said that this was the third housing debate in three months. It is, and it is because of the current figures that we are anxious again to bring before the House the serious situation into which the country is drifting under the present Government. In the first quarter of 1969, there were 70,800 starts which was 19,700 down on the same period of 1968; completions at 83,400 were 13,200 down; local authority approvals at

20,700, were 19,900 down, 50 per cent. down.
These are very serious figures, and the Minister has failed to give any credible reassurance about the future. We need a better explanation on this immediate problem than the explanation which the Minister chose to give. It is clear from those figures that the supply of houses is to be severely cut this year. It has always been difficult to ascertain how many houses a year the Government wish to see built. In the National Plan of 1965 the figure was 500,000 by 1970. It was the same figure in the Prime Minister's famous pledge, "not lightly given", of 1966. In 1968, the Minister, in answer to a Question, gave, if one works it out, a target of 440,000 by 1970. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) pointed out, the Prime Minister was, at the same time, saying that it would be 483,500, again if one works out the figures based on the replies.
But there is a clear Government target in the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) referred in an intervention. He called attention to the magnificent figure of 2 million houses which will be built by the end of 1969 by the Labour Party since it came to power. I do not want to weary the House with too many figures, but these should go on record. I want to discover what that 2 million means. The Government came into office in October, 1964. Taking the last quarter of 1964, the figure was 107,012; in 1965 it was 382,297; in 1966 it was 385,509; in 1967 it was 404,356; and in 1968 it was 413,715. Those figures add up to 1,692,889 to the end of last year which, when taken away from the figure of 2 million which is to be reached by the end of this year, means that the Government's target for this year is 307,111. Is that all? Why make this play with the figure of 2 million houses built at the end of 1969?

Mr. Leadbitter: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is this. In March this year there were 442,000 houses under construction. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is wrong as well as his logic.

Mr. Page: That is almost the same as when the Labour Party took office,


and the Government have never succeeded in building that number of houses a year.
I should like to know the target. In the Amendment we are asked to congratulate the Government on the fact that they will have completed 2 million houses by the end of 1969. I do not propose to congratulate the Government on building only 307,000 houses this year. Why try to get publicity for the figure of 2 million houses built by the end of 1969? Perhaps that is the only true statement in the Amendment.

Mr. Simon Mahon: There is another true statement in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman complains about what the Labour Party promised to do and what it has not done. Another true statement in the Amendment refers to
the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help.
What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?

Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He has quoted one of the biggest lies in the Amendment. Let me repeat it—
the removal of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrators failed to help.
In 1935 the Conservative Government created the well maintained payment. When the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1951 it did nothing at all about the compensation law. In 1955, the Conservative Government started the slum clearance drive and introduced market value compensation for those who had bought between 1939 and 1955. In May, 1965, when the Government had the opportunity to do something about this matter on a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) on a Friday, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, although he said that he had been up all the night before and had not had any breakfast, made a speech for 33 minutes. He sat down at four minutes to four o'clock in order to allow his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Herbert Butler) to talk the Bill out. Do you know what he said on that Bill, Mr. Speaker? He stated:

It might be said that the answer is to give everyone market value, but we believe that that would be wrong".
Now the Government congratulate themselves, five years later, because they think that it would be right. Talking about the site value rule, the hon. Gentleman said:
It is fundamental to an effective slum clearance programme and has been recognised to be so by successive Governments ever since it was introduced in 1919. Its basis is obviously correct.
If the Government rely on the fact that they have suddenly been converted in the last year to giving part market value to some of those who are suffering, I am right in saying that the statements in the Amendment are untrue.

Mr. Greenwood: It may have taken my hon. Friend 33 minutes to explain the position, but it took the Conservative Party 30 years between the 1935 Act and a Private Member's Bill in 1965.

Mr. Page: I seem to remember that the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1951 when it could have done something about it. In 1935 and in 1955 we did something about it, and we pressed the Government to do something about it when they had the opportunity in renewing the slum clearance Act in 1965.
I have spent too long perhaps on one point, but I was asked to deal with it and I have shown what untruths there are in the Amendment. It speaks about generous improvement grants. They are simply a matter of catching up with inflation and the increase in building costs. It speaks about speeding up slum clearance. Eighty per cent. of the present slum clearance schemes were approved by the Conservative Government. We are asked to congratulate the Government on their "help towards home ownership". What help? House prices and mortgage interest rates have increased so that the repayments put home ownership out of the reach of the average manual worker. How dare the Government talk about "help towards home ownership".
The Minister talked about a relief of £16 10s. per annum on the rates for 840,000 people. That is about the increase in rates which has occurred while the Labour Government has been in office. We are asked to congratulate the Government on housing associations. They have


cut the potential of the Housing Corporation by half. The opening sentence of the 32nd annual report of the National Federation of Housing Societies states:
There are many within the voluntary housing movement who look back at the year under review as one of the most frustrating they have experienced.
We are asked to congratulate the Government on that.
The reckless disregard for the truth in the matters listed in the Amendment is a scraping of the barrel to find an excuse for the failure of the Government's housing programme. The public will see through it and show their contempt, at the next general election, for the Government's inefficiency in ensuring that the people have decent homes.

6.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who brought some life to the debate. When it began I almost failed to recognise the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker); he was so subdued. It has been impossible to realise that this was supposed to be a great attack by hon. Members opposite upon this side of the House; indeed, at one stage I took pains to count the attendance of hon. Members opposite who felt so strongly on this issue, and I found that there were six—[Interruption.] I did not look behind me. I never pretend to greater qualities than I possess. I do not pretend that I have eyes in the back of my head—but I have eyes in front. The party opposite has not behaved as though this was a substantial Motion of censure—and I shall give some reasons why. I believe that hon. Members opposite have run out of speeches for their Supply Days.
Before I turn to the content of the debate I must point out that for all hon. Members, wherever they sit, the question of the type and quality of the houses in which our people live is of the utmost importance. I do not believe that anyone is complacent about the housing of our people. We make our party points—the House thrives on scoring party points; it keeps the place alive—but, at bottom, we all share a deep concern that the housing of our people

shall be worthy of the country. The efforts made by respective Governments differ. A different emphasis is placed on different sectors of the problem, as I hope to prove. I do not believe that any formula can measure the social consequences of poor housing standards.
Before I turn to the statistics I hope I may be allowed to make one personal reference. I take statistics very seriously, but I hope the House will forgive me if I introduce one personal note, because I know that the House does not like them. Twenty years ago my elder sister was killed in a road accident. When the statistics for road fatalities were issued that year they showed that over 400 people had been killed on the roads, but in my mind there was only one—our Ada. When we talk in terms of statistics we must realise that for each family the only important question is the condition in which it is living. We are sometimes carried away by political arguments so that we forget how much the lives of our people are affected.
I shall soon start my twenty-fifth year in this House—at least, I hope so. I shall do so if my health holds out. I have been concerned in many a vote of censure. I have been re-reading the report of an interesting vote of censure in 1963, when we were on the other side of the House and the party opposite was on this side. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) proudly told the House that 4½ million houses had been built in the United Kingdom since the war. In 18 years 4½ million houses had been built. We can now tell the House that in five years 2 million more have been built. When the party opposite went out of office its proud boast to the electorate was that 25 per cent. of our people were living in a post-war house. Today, the proportion is 37 per cent. This does not read like a failure.
I have been dealing with the hon. Member for Crosby for a long time. I know his technique. The weaker his argument, the louder his voice. If ever a man needed a thick skin the hon. Member did when he talked about rising prices. He asked us to consider the way in which the price of a house had risen in the five years during which this Government have been in power. He traded on the short memories of the public, but I shall remind them of the true facts. It so happens


that this rising trend in prices began not in 1964 but a long time before that. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite gave it a good start, well before we came into power. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is making my speech for me, because the rate of increase has slowed down. I shall give the figures to the House.
From 1960 to 1964 the cost of new houses increased, on average, by 7·5 per cent. each year; from 1964 to 1968 the figure was 7 per cent. That is too high, but it is lower than the previous annual rate; it is beginning to move in the right direction. The cost of second-hand or older houses increased from 1960 to 1964, the last four years that the Conservatives had power in their hands, by 8·2 per cent. each year. From 1964 to 1968 the figure was 6·8 per cent.
We have had a lot of humbug tonight. [Interruption.] I had a job to stop laughing when the hon. Member for Crosby was talking. I know that the yardstick by which we measure achievement today is achievement yesterday; it is the only yardstick that the House ever uses. We cannot measure achievement by the mysterious future which Providence hides from our eyes; we can measure our housing achievement only by the yardstick of what is already there.

Mr. Peter Walker: Promises.

Mr. Thomas: Promises? The hon. Member had better whisper that word. The party opposite used to talk about a property-owning democracy. Since this Government have been in office there has been an increase in the number of owner-occupiers. In our four years of office the number has increased by 100,000—a 13 per cent. increase in that four-year period.
The House knows that I hail from the Rhondda Valley, although I have had the honour of representing in this House for 24 years part of the city of Cardiff. The people of South Wales, like the people of Birmingham and London, have been persecuted by the leasehold system, that system which is the essence of capitalism and which meant that when people bought their home it still belonged to the ground landlord. It was a remarkable system, but it continued until we came into power.

Two important decisions have been registered by the Lands Tribunal. Since those decisions were taken ground landlords throughout the country have been forcing up the price of freeholds.
We believe that the leaseholder should not be considered as a bidder in the open market. We believe that it is wrong that the leaseholder who owns the bricks and mortar should have to pay what the profession calls the marriage value when he seeks to purchase the freehold of his home. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has said, we are today tabling an Amendment to the Housing Bill as a result of which a million leaseholders will become property owners in the right sense of the word. We have done more in four years to create a property-owning democracy than the Tories did in all their years of office.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was on the Committee that dealt with the Leasehold Reform Bill, or he might recollect that we on this side said that unless the Government tidied up the Clause in question there might be an open interpretation of it, but all our proposals for improving the Bill were cast aside.

Mr. Thomas: The House will recall that I used the phrase "a thick skin and a poor memory". I have campaigned in the House and outside for too long not to remember the history of the party opposite on leasehold. During the passage of the Leasehold Reform Bill the party opposite told us that we were stealing, that it was confiscation; they were opposed, root and branch to the Leasehold Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that he was opposed to it, and I well remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East saying that Western Ground Rents, about the worst ground landlords in Wales—

An Hon. Member: And still are.

Mr. Thomas: I do not know what they are now, but they certainly were the worst. However, the right hon. Gentleman said in the House that they were charging a fair price for their property.
We have given to owner-occupiers a liberty that they have been denied by the party of big interests opposite. The party opposite remains the party of big business


and big interests, but I am talking about the owner-ocupier of modest means.
I am particularly proud that we took action about those who owned property in clearance areas. The reason why local authorities have been reluctant to embark on slum clearance has been the inadequacy of the compensation which they were entitled to give to those whose houses were unfit. Whether a house is well maintainted or whether it is declared unfit by the inspector, it is the house for that family, and we have laid down for the first time that an owner-occupier shall be entitled to the market value for his house. This removes a grievous social injustice which has lasted for far too long.
When I was on the other side of the House in 1959, people living in an area in my constituency in West Cardiff called Riverside were being pushed out of their houses, being paid £70 or £80 and having to move to the outskirts of the city. We know that when there is slum clearance people have to move to outside areas, but it is monstrous that the community should acquire land and not pay at least the market value for the property. That land is now at the mercy of a Conservative council in Cardiff—I am sorry that I spoke about the right hon. Gentleman when he was not here——

Sir Keith Joseph: I was here.

Mr. Thomas: At the end of the day we are dependent upon the local authorities. The land that was taken from those people who owned their own homes in Cardiff is now being sold by the Conservative corporation to private developers, and an enormous price will be obtained.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman will surely recollect that it was his Government which removed from the Bill the Clause which would have given that profit to the owners when council plans were changed.

Mr. Thomas: I remember a good deal more. I remember that in that Measure there were precautions. It is true that this local authority has been able to exploit the Clause which allowed it, and the Tories are doing so.
Earlier in the debate figures were being bandied backwards and forwards. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has given the House the record figures for housing. There is no need for anyone on this side of the House to apologise. Far from a vote of censure, we should be getting a vote of thanks.
We all know that local authorities throughout the country are largely in the control of the party opposite, and it is a serious thing if Conservative councils do not have proper housing targets. Last year in Cardiff the housing achievement dropped to roughly 460. Two years ago it was 1,100. But then it was a Labour council. Ever since the Conservatives came in, the policy has changed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has given me similar figures for Scotland—of tremendous achievement in the private sector and in the public sector. There are more homes for the people. In Scotland, England and Wales there is the same story of advance and success, and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 218.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter
Booth, Albert
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Jack
Boston, Terence
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boyden, James
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brooks, Edwin
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Baxter, William
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Binns, John
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Delargy, Hugh




Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dickens, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John


Ensor, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Rees, Merlyn


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fletcher, R. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ryan, John


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Sheldon, Robert


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Skeffington, Arthur


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hazell, Bert
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Henig, Stanley




Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitaker, Ben


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Horner, John
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Winnick, David


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woof, Robert


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Paget, R. T.



Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Charles Grey and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Neil McBride.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bessell, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Biffen, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Blaker, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)







Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Peyton, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, A. W.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wylie, N. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 217.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Joel
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter
Baxter, William
Boston, Terence


Ashley, Jack
Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bidwell, Sydney
Boyden, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.
Brooks, Edwin


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.




Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horner, John
Orme, Stanley


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hoy, James
Padley, Walter


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)




Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Dell, Edmund
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ryan, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skeffington, Arthur


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackie, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, David (Consett)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Gregory, Arnold
Mayhew, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)




Whitaker, Ben


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert
Woof, Robert


Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold
Wyatt, Woodrow


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan



Heffer, Eric S.
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henig, Stanley
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Charles Grey and


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Albert E.








NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Bessell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brewis, John
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard




Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Donnelly, Desmond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Waddington, David


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, A. W.


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Jasper More.


Goodhew, Victor

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the success of its housing policy, as a result of which it is anticipated that by the end of 1969 two million new houses will have been completed

since the General Election of 1964; on its reform of town and country planning; on its welcome proposal now before Parliament for the payment of some generous improvement grants on old houses, for the speeding up of slum clearance, and for the removal


of the grossly unfair bases for compensation payable to owner-occupiers in clearance areas whom previous Conservative administrations failed to help; on its effective action against escalating rents and its encouragement of long-overdue rent rebate schemes; on the provision of a domestic rate subsidy for the current year of 1s. 3d. in the £ in England and Wales, 2s. 6d. in the £ in Scotland; on its recent improvement of the rate rebate scheme introduced by the present Government and of very great value to ratepayers most in need of help; on the increased assistance it has given to voluntary housing associations providing housing by improvement and conversion; and on its provision of option mortgages and the help towards home ownership.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

7.22 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the irresponsibility of Her Majesty's Government in announcing increases in social insurance and other benefits without revealing what extra burden this will impose upon employed people, employers and general taxation.
A month has now passed since the Budget speech, and the Finance Bill has been published and is now in Committee. On the very day on which the Budget speech was made—indeed, throughout the Budget debates—we condemned the Government's irresponsibility in announcing changes in National Insurance benefits without disclosing how the cost would be met. Still today, a full month later, we have been told nothing of how much extra taxation will be required and how much extra contribution from employed people, how much extra contribution from industry, how much of an extra burden on general taxation. The financing of National Insurance benefits is as important as taxation, because, exactly as taxation, it affects the take-home pay of every family in the country.
I am glad that, at the last moment, the Secretary of State for Social Services has decided to take part in this debate. I was told just before the debate that he did not intend to take part. With my usual good nature, I assumed that he had forgotten the debate, as he had forgotten the recent local elections. It would though be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could make up his mind and stick to it for five minutes at a time. What I suspect has happened is that, as a result of the

Motion, he found himself in a completely untenable position and has therefore found it necessary to take part in the debate. He is very welcome.
I am bound to say, with the Chief Secretary present, that I am astonished that no Treasury Minister is taking part. Overwhelmingly, the Motion criticises the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I fail to understand how the Chancellor could put before the House a Budget judgment, announcing increased benefits from the National Insurance Fund, without disclosing the increased taxation which will have to be levied to meet those increases. The failure of any Treasury Minister to take part in the debate seems to compound the irresponsibility which our Motion condemns.
It is the right hon. Gentleman's duty, of course, to reply to the general debate, but we understood from the Leader of the House, during Business Questions today, that he intends to make a statement about the Health Service charges on dentures and spectacles. I should like to ask him two questions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that the announcement of increased charges on dentures and spectacles would be announced in the Budget. Why did he hope that it would be in the Budget, and why was it excluded from the Budget?
Second, when he announced the increased charges on dentures and spectacles, we were given to understand from his statement that the money which would be raised would be used for other parts of the National Health Service. In particular, he mentioned the possibility of using the finance for hospitals for the mentally handicapped. These are charges which bear most hard on the elderly. We now understond that the additional revenue raised will be spent on comprehensive schools. Could this be cleared up. May we possibly be told whether the additional revenue will be raised for the Health Service or for comprehensive schools, as we read in the paper today?

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I understood the noble Lord to say that he expected me to intervene on the subject of the contributions which are the subject of this debate. It is news to me that the subject of charges has been introduced.

Lord Balniel: Probably the right hon. Gentleman left the Chamber before the Leader of the House made his statement, but I understood that one of my hon. Friends referred to the increased charges and the Leader of the House said that a statement would be made by the Secretary of State for Social Services. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Crossman: I think that there was some misunderstanding. The point is that I hoped to suit the convenience of the House by discussing the subject of the contribution levies which we were making and this, I thought, was the subject of this debate.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend may not have read the reports in tonight's Evening Standard and Evening News to the effect that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had no idea that the increases on spectacles and false teeth were to be diverted to comprehensive education.

Lord Balniel: I think that we had better leave the matter there, for this emphasises that we have a dithering, disintegrating Government.
The Budget was designed to increase taxation by £272 million in the current year and by £340 million in a full year. This was clearly explained to the country, apart from some minor evasions about where the burden would fall. This vast increase in taxation is widely understood; and it is also widely recognised that it is the third hardest Budget this country has experienced in peacetime.
It was not clearly explained that a similar amount would have to be raised to meet the changes in National Insurance benefits in the autumn simply to restore the purchasing power of the pension. The Chancellor was exquisitely precise in announcing the benefits. He was studiously vague in disclosing the burdens. That perfect balance which the right hon. Gentleman tried to achieve—of announcing the benefits but hiding the burdens—seems to epitomise the economic mismanagement of the country at present.
The Chancellor said that the cost of the increased State insurance benefits would be about £250 million in a full year. He went on:

… but substantial extra provision will have to be made on top of this, to take account both of the existing imbalance between income and expenditure of the main National Insurance Fund, and of the continuing increase in the number of pensioners in relation to the working population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
I shall return to the question of the imbalance of the National Insurance Fund shortly, since a great deal of explaining needs to be done. Explanations have no doubt been given to the International Monetary Fund on its three-monthly audit of Britain's economy but the House of Commons is also entitled to have an explanation before the debate ends.
We repeatedly, throughout the Budget debates, pressed the Government to say how this cost would be met. We asked them to say how much extra weekly contribution would fall on employed persons, how much extra weekly contribution would fall on the shoulders of industry and how much extra burden would be placed on general taxation. The Government consistently refused to answer these key questions.
We are, after all, not talking about small change. The explanations we require about this taxation involve sums of money which are comparable with the totality of the Budget. In other words, the sum which will have to be raised in contributions is about equal to the total which is being raised in taxes. Yet the Government have refused to answer these questions on the ground that they are still working out the sums.
I have made inquiries to confirm my memory of previous pension increases. On all five occasions when, under Conservative Administration, increased benefits were announced, the increased contributions were announced absolutely simultaneously. Normally we thought it right that the statement should be made by the Minister responsible—then the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—but I concede that there was one occasion, in very special circumstances—it occurred in the 1952 Budget following the crash of the economy in 1951 under Labour—when there was, in that unique circumstance, an announcement of increased benefits made by the Chancellor in his Budget speech. At the time the Chancellor was my noble Friend Lord Butler. But in his Budget speech he announced not only the increased benefits


but, simultaneously and down to the last ½d., what increased contributions were required.
I recognise the urgency of the situation and I could read the Chancellor's mind clearly as, in the Budget, he piled tax on top of tax. The purchasing power of the State pension is falling rapidly and I agree that it urgently needs to have its value restored. Food, gas, electricity, coal, bus fares—I read about this in the evening papers—rates, rent, clothing, beer, and cigarettes—all these items of everyday life are costing more.
In my constituency the water rates this year are being increased by 42 per cent. Many other costs which particularly hit the elderly are increasing; for example, the charges on dentures and spectacles. While this might seem a rather absurd example of how rising prices particularly hit the elderly, the increase in the tax on pet food will have a big effect. Many elderly people are lonely and a great number of them have pets to keep them company. Indeed, between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all elderly people are known to have pets. The cost of keeping a dog will be increased by about 4s. a week, The Budget as a whole will give a further twist to the price spiral, with its increase in S.E.T., a tax which has a direct impact on the cost of living.
I cannot understand the Government's extraordinary self-satisfaction with the position. I accept that, like decent human beings, hon. Gentlemen want to be generous towards our old people. I am the first to confirm that directly they were returned to office they substantially increased the value of the State pension, paying for it out of the prosperity of those times, which seem a long time ago.
But the economic mismanagement since then—emphasised by this incident in the Budget which we are debating today—results in the purchasing power of the State pension being substantially below what it was in 1965. The latest figures, issued in March, 1969, show that, compared with similar figures for four years ago, there has been a drop of 5·1 per cent. in the real purchasing power of the pension.
It is impossible for us to make exact forecasts, but it is reasonable to anticipate that, within six months of the pro-

posed November increases—the increases which will take effect this autumn—the purchasing power of the pension will again have fallen to below the 1965 level. This will be exactly the rate of erosion which followed the 1967 pension increase. Under the Government's proposals there will be a regular two-yearly review, but already, long before the pension increases have come into force, we know that within six months the pension will have fallen to below its purchasing power of 1965.
The tragedy is that these heavy increases in contributions, however they will be distributed—perhaps we will be told today—which should achieve an improvement in the standard of life of our old people, will have lost their meaning within six months. In other words, these heavy increases are necessary not to secure a real improvement in their standard of life but purely to compensate for the tide of rising prices.
Just as it is wrong to announce benefits in isolation, so it is wrong to consider the burden of contributions in isolation. Contributions are part of that complex of taxes and prices which affect people's take-home pay. Our poor battered families are facing the treble impact of higher contributions, higher taxes, and higher prices—prices which rise every day. Since 1964, the National Insurance contributions have gone up by 40 per cent., while average weekly earnings have increased by 27 per cent. In 1964, an employed man, not contracted out of the graduated scheme, paid 11s. 8d. a week. Today he pays 16s. 8d. a week. That is an increase of 5s. a week.
During that same period taxation has been increased by over £3,000 million, which means that for every £1 taken in taxes by the Government in 1964, over £2 is being taken today. In that same period between 1964 and January of this year, prices have risen by 21 per cent.—4s. 3d. in the £. This is a very different picture from that in which the Conservatives increased pensions five times and, at the same time, made large cuts in taxation.
In view of this treble impact of higher contributions, higher taxes and higher prices on our working population and on industry, it simply is not fair or straight not to have announced the details of how the higher benefits would


be paid for at the same time as announcing the higher benefits themselves.
There can be only two possible explanations why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make that announcement in his Budget speech. Either he knew how they would be paid for and did not wish to increase his personal unpopularity by announcing them then, or he did not know, in which case the Government stand convicted of incompetence and irresponsibility. I will not attempt to distinguish whether the reason was the personal vanity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government's ignorance. Hon. Members opposite can take their choice. But it must be one of those two reasons.
I turn now to the National Insurance Fund, and to that part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in which he indicated that an unspecified increase in contribution is needed over and above what is needed for the payment of the increase in benefits
… to take account … of the … imbalance … of the … Fund …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
It is very disturbing to hear about this imbalance of the Fund. I hope that before we rise for the Whitsun Recess—and presumably it will be when the Secretary of State introduces his Bill—we will have the Government Actuary's Report explaining the situation.
It is very disturbing to hear that the National Insurance Fund has run into deficit again, because, only so very recently, steps, and extremely unpleasant steps, had to be taken to put the National Insurance Fund in balance. When the last pension increase was announced, the Government Actuary's report published in June 1967 as Cmnd. 3321 said:
Table 4 shows that the proposed contribution increases will be more than is needed"—
more than is needed:
to meet the direct cost of the increases in benefit rates, the balance of the extra income being required to meet the deficits which would accrue before 31st March 1970 if present rates of benefit and contribution were continued. Contributions at the proposed new rates should therefore be adequate to support the increased benefits over that period.
Then, just a very few months later—on 16th January, 1968—the Prime Minister announced that an extra 6d. a side increase in the National Insurance contribution was needed

… to prevent the National Insurance Fund from going into deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1588.]
This was the first time in the history of the National Insurance Fund that contributions had been put up without a corresponding increase in benefits.
When we challenged the then First Secretary of State, now the Foreign Secretary, to say what was wrong, he said:
There are limits to human capacity for far sightedness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 355.]
That may be true, but there are also limits for short sightedness.
This is not the end of the story. As my hon. Friend, will remember, only last December—again, I think, for the first time—no less than £200 million was transferred from the Reserve Fund to the main National Insurance Fund. This was done, according to the Government spokesman, to put the Fund
… in a better financial position to meet demands which may be made on it.
He went on to say:
This is a precautionary transfer and it is possible that the money transferred will not actually be drawn upon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 717–20.]
Now, four months later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that substantial extra provision will have to be made because of the imbalance.
The International Monetary Fund has, without any question, been given an explanation of the situation. The House also is entitled to know what has gone wrong. The House is entitled to know what is the total cost of the increased benefits; of the pensions, and of the related benefits such as sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit, incidentally, has soared from £45 million in 1965 to £125 million last year.
The House is entitled to know what is the increased cost of the supplementary benefit which is proposed this autumn; and, perhaps most important of all, what is the increased cost of again putting the Fund in balance. The House is entitled to know, and it should have been told at the time of the Budget, exactly how the burden is to be distributed between different employees; what additional burden is to be imposed on industry,


and what additional extra taxation is to be levied to meet these changes in the National Insurance Fund.
The failure to give that information in the Budget speech which announced changes in benefit was wrong in principle. It was absolutely unprecedented. It was deceitful towards the general public, and it was completely irresponsible from the point of view of the general management of our economic affairs. This Motion condemns the Government for their irresponsible action at the time of the Budget speech.

7.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I certainly agree with the noble Lord on one thing, and that is the importance of this subject, and vast sums with which we are dealing and the very big decisions we have to make. He has not exaggerated there at all. We have an immense job. In that job we are reviewing the whole range of National Insurance benefits and allowances—industrial injury, supplementary benefits and war pensions. They are all being reviewed in terms of benefit and contribution. That has been my job and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who specialises in the subject in the Department.
I admit that when I looked at the Motion I was in two minds, as the noble Lord said, whether to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with the narrow and, I must say, slightly pettily expressed issue in the Motion, or myself intervene to deal briefly with that aspect and rather more widely with the big issues which the noble Lord raised towards the end of his speech. I came to the conclusion that the House would not be content in this debate—indeed, would be disappointed—if I did not speak. I therefore decided that the best thing that I could do was to make as full an interim explanation to the House as possible, and to answer as many of the questions that the noble Lord has put to me as I can.
I will deal this evening, I think in adequate detail, with one subject the noble Lord has raised—that is, the National Insurance Fund and the amount to be raised. I shall not be able to deal in detail with the exact methods of con-

tribution because they are enormously complicated, though I will deal with the general principles of benefit.
There is one special reason for this which I shall come to towards the end of my speech. Since the White Paper was published, and as a result of its publication, there has broken out in pension circles, which are extraordinarily private circles in the sense that very few people understand what is going on, a major dispute about one paragraph in the White Paper. It dealt with the highly technical, but very important for millions of ordinary people, subject of what is to happen to the benefit which people have earned as a result of the Boyd-Carpenter pension—the benefit they get from the bricks they acquire, or the pension entitlement from the graded element in the contribution.
This controversy was started by a representative of Unilever, I think, from the National Association of Pension Funds. It has been clear that there is an immense discussion going on, and this issue is one which we cannot avoid and which we have to take a decision about. As I said, my White Paper was a White Paper with green edges. I meant it. This is certainly one of the issues where I am prepared to think, and I am indeed thinking again. Since this in a sense does indeed relate to the Bill, though it would not be included in the Bill, a statement about this must be made before the Bill is considered so that the Bill can be seen on its merits. I have decided that this discussion must continue.
I therefore think that the best thing that I can do is to give the description to the House this evening of what we are up to and to describe the issue. We will give the full details after the Recess. Then we shall come to present the Bill and the actual White Paper which accompanies it. That is the programme of action which I have put to myself, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
My speech will be divided into four parts. First, I will deal briefly with why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an announcement in his Budget speech. He did not announce the details of the benefits. He announced only the main benefit to indicate the line. Second, I shall deal with the costs and the state


of the National Insurance Fund. Third, I shall say in principle how the contribution will be raised. Then, finally, I shall tackle the special subject of the problem arising among pension funds about the future of the benefit accruing on the graded element in the Tory Government's scheme.
I will try to deal with the same sense of gravity as the noble Lord employed with the issue of the Chancellor's behaviour. The noble Lord asked me why the Chancellor announced this. I will tell the noble Lord quite candidly why my right hon. Friend made the announcement. He made the announcement to reassure pensioners that the Government intended to implement their pledge to protect them against price increases, and to do so before the winter. Very naturally, the Chancellor knew full well that if he had not made that statement in his Budget speech a number of people might have been anxious that they were going to suffer the same kind of fate as that which befell them normally under a Tory Government.
I looked back and saw what happened about pension renewals under our predecessors. After the increase in 1958 it was three years and three months before the next increase came. Before that it was two years and nine months. Before that it had been two years and six months.
We have written in the White Paper the proposal that there should be statutory biennial reviews. Our last review was exactly after two years. What the Chancellor was telling the pensioners was, "Yes. Whatever happens, you will get it in the two-year period which we have promised and which is a good deal shorter than happened under our predecessors." [Interruption.] If I think of that period of thirteen years, sometimes prices went up more and sometimes less. I am coming to the prices now, because the noble Lord raised the important question of the value of the pension.
The truth of the matter is—let us give the facts as they are; I do not think that the noble Lord and I really disagree on these facts—that the current retirement pension still at this present time provides 10 per cent. more spending power—more real value—than the pension had when the Tories were in office. The real value—that means the real income of pen-

sioners —has been substantially raised Even in this difficult period before we do the 10s. increase, it is 10 per cent. above the income which people had before we took office, and it will be 20 per cent. above when we have completed the change next autumn. That is a very simple fact. The autumn increase—the noble Lord asked me about the increase—will restore the value of the pension to the October, 1967, level. That is 20 per cent. higher in real terms above the 1964 level. In money terms the increase represented by the new £5 pension for single persons compared with the 1964 pension of £3 7s. 6d. is £1 12s. 6d., or nearly half as much gain.
I shall not spend much time arguing, but I think that pensioners knew this very well. We did in fact make a major shift. This was a redistribution. We said to the workers, "Look. We have promised it. The retired must have a larger spending power, even if it is at the cost of us all spending rather less during our working lives".

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: How much?

Mr. Crossman: I am talking about 1964. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have to ask how much. The increase this year will be 10s. for the single person. All the other corollary rates will have the relevant increases. That will restore the value. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on pensions, will recognise that the pension is in real value one-fifth greater than the pension which the Tory Government felt the people deserved. That is a very big difference. It is a difference we have sustained over a very difficult economic period and despite the great difficulties of the period.
I would simply say that in a Budget review of the economic situation I should have thought it would have been most extraordinary to leave that out. The Chancellor also had a very special reason for doing this in his Budget Statement, because he was making a series of reforms and tax changes specially designed to suit old people. For the third time since 1964 he increased the income limits up to which elderly people of 65 or over qualify for age exemption from income tax. He made another concession, in that from now on the taxpayer aged 65


whose income does not exceed £1,000 will be able to claim relief equivalent to two-ninths income relief on his investment income. My right hon. Friend also proposed to raise the income limits on allowances for those maintaining an elderly or infirm relative. My right hon. Friend took a great number of small steps.
Obviously, if my right hon. Friend was making all those small tax changes, he had to relate them to, and enable them to be seen against, the increase in the pension, because one of the most important things to do if the pension is increased is not to lop off the increase by letting the tax level be at a point where the pension is subtracted from by tax. This needs to be done. It is petty to say that this is something which the Chancellor should not have done, because he made it clear in his speech also that substantial extra provisions need to be made on top of this, and he made it clear that we would have to pay a very heavy price in contributions.
So I come to the second point, which is the burden of contributions, the detailed scheme of which we are now working out. Before I come to the figures, let me first give the reasons why this burden has increased. It is not simply the increase in the value of the pension. As the noble Lord rightly said, there is a substantial amount more which we receive above what is needed to increase the pension.
Why are we doing that? We have drawn attention to one of the factors, which is quite simply that the number of pensioners is increasing in proportion to the rest of the population. Their numbers are growing faster and faster than ever. We draw attention to this in our White Paper, which gives figures showing that the ratio of people over minimum pension age to the population of working age will increase from 25·2 per cent. in 1967 to 28·3 per cent. in 1980. In the early 1960s the number of retirement pensioners was increasing annually by numbers ranging from 100,000 in 1961 to 170,000 in 1964. This is remarkable. Since 1964 the increase has been about 200,000 a year. At the end of 1968 retirement pensioners numbered nearly seven million.
The hon. Gentleman asked why retirement pension contributions must go up. One of the major factors is our success in keeping our old people alive longer. It is a success that we must pay for, just as our success in education means that our children cost us more. Our dependants at both ends of the age range are costing us more and more, while the size of the working population tends to decline. Unless the population trends change remarkably in the years ahead, we shall have to look forward to the working population having deducted from their earnings larger proportions even to maintain the value of the pension, far less to increase it, as I would like to do. It is a formidable problem when we have an extra million pensioners in seven years not only to maintain the pension value as we want, and as I think the hon. Gentleman wants, but also to see that the individual pensioner receives a larger share. So much for the pensioner.
There are other factors which increase the contribution. One is the disconcerting fact that although in the past three winters fewer old people died, more working people claimed sickness benefit. There has been a very heavy increase in sickness benefit during this period. It is partly due to our earnings related sickness benefit scheme for the first six months of sickness. This is a very generous scheme, like the generous scheme for unemployment benefits, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. One reason why unemployment benefit costs again went up is that we pay very much better benefit now. It is true that the six-months' earnings related benefits for sickness and unemployment, which most hon. Members opposite must admit to be an enormous improvement not only in principle but in practice, is a very costly improvement. It is a cost that we have to bear, and if the scheme continues at that standard it will cost more.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the number of unemployed also increased in that period. These changes might each seem somewhat marginal but we are dealing with £2,000 million a year and what are marginal in statistics can be formidable differences when they are worked out. It does not take more than a statistically small number on sickness benefit to produce an enormous increase in cost.
Therefore, the result of the changes was that we had many more old people to look after, many more people going sick and claiming sickness benefit, and somewhat more unemployed. In the financial year just ended, the National Insurance Fund had a deficit on current working of £80 million because of the continuing growth in the number of pensioners. After making reasonable allowance for present trends, it is clear that if steps were not taken the deficit would grow over the next two or three years. Our estimate is that by 1971–72 it might be as high as £220 million at present rates of benefit and contribution. So we can see the scale of the problem.
This autumn we must not only pay for the increased pensions and allowances, which no one in the House will grudge, but must act promptly to ensure that the Fund is kept properly in balance now and in the immediate future. This means that we shall need to find a total of about £430 million. But this will not all have to come from increased contributions. About £70 million is automatically the Exchequer contribution. We shall accordingly need to raise from increased contributions about £360 million. That is a very large sum, but essential if we are to fulfil our obligations to the pensioners and others with benefit entitlement and keep the National Insurance Fund on an even keel.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. I think I have answered his main section on the state of the National Insurance Fund and the amount to be raised.
I turn to the second matter about which I was asked——

Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he was in effect assuming present trends. I do not ask for precision in his reply to this, but am I right in saying, therefore, that he is assuming something like, seasonally adjusted, the present level of unemployment, and that that is implicit in the figures he is giving to the House?

Mr. Crossman: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let my hon. Friend the Minister of State reply. I think it is a question of whether it is the last two months or which period is taken. I

do not think that we have anything to disguise on that.
We have a formidable sum to raise. How to raise it? There was one temptation I would mention to the House. It would have been possible to argue that we should not raise it all now but should wait for the quinquennial review. The Conservative Government, envisaging that increases without increased benefits might be necessary to keep the fund in balance, made provisions for quinquennial reviews, and the next is due next April. So we could have had two bites at—not "this cherry", because it does not have the taste of one—this stone, once now and again next April. We decided that it was more sensible to do both jobs together in this way.
Having dealt with one method of avoidance, I come to how the money is to be raised. There are several alternatives, and we have analysed them all very carefully. It is possible to argue that we should put the bulk of the increase on the employers. Many European countries do this. In Sweden, a country whose pensions I greatly admire, there is a splendid earnings related pension scheme where the employee pays nothing and the employers pay 10 per cent. of earnings every year. The employers say it makes the trade unions so modest in their wage claims that they are overwhelmingly repaid by this arrangement. I doubt whether that would happen here. I do not think that our employers can be blamed for saying that they do not want to follow the Swedish example.
We are in the middle of a great export drive. To put it crudely, if we put the increase on the employer we put it on the cost of goods, and it would not help us now to overload him. We are therefore retaining the strict parity between the employer and employee which we have written into the White Paper. We continue to try to keep the two contributions roughly equal. The contribution will not be off-loaded on to the employer as it is in France, Italy and Belgium as well as Sweden.
Could one off-load it on to the taxpayer? One could do it by increasing the Exchequer contribution, but we are keeping the Exchequer contribution to the same proportion. Could we increase it? It is my considered view that we


should not. I am very concerned about the up-rating being one moving towards the new scheme. I want it to be in conformity with the principles of the scheme, in which the Exchequer contribution is about 18 per cent. If we avoided our difficulties in the next two or three years and made the Exchequer pay more now we should upset the balance of the new scheme. The level of taxation is high enough today [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that I have won some support.
If we agree that the increase should not go on taxation, and if we think that it is very doubtful whether it is wise to put it on the employer, we are driven back to the fact that we must share it between the employer and contributor, knowing very well that with pensions it is only the contributor who really pays, whatever happens, because the employer puts the increase on the cost of goods. We may as well face it.
How does one put the increase on the contributor? If I had followed the example of my Conservative predecessors I should no doubt have increased the flat-rate benefit by the necessary amount. That is what they did every time in their long period in office. They did not vary the graded element during the period after it was introduced. I have always hated flat-rate contributions. One of the greatest objects of the new scheme is to abolish the flat-rate poll tax and to make sure that the worse-off person pays less and the better-off person pays more. This was a principle we fought for, and I want to sustain it.
In 1961 the flat-rate contribution for a man earning £12 a week represented 4·1 per cent. of his pay. It is now 6·9 per cent. But for the man earning £30 a week it is only 2·8 per cent., and even with a graduated contribution it is only 4·4 per cent., against 8·2 per cent. on earnings of £12. These contrasts are intolerable, and the main thing I thought we should do was to see to it that we spread the burden as far as we could.
There is another figure that I think the hon. Gentleman would like to hear. To raise the money we need by a further increase in the flat-rate contribution would mean a rise of well over 3s. each for employer and employee in the stamp.

In my view, this would have been intolerable.
We concluded that it would not be right to follow the example of our predecessors, and therefore we have been at work on a method of adjusting the flat rate by as small an increase as possible, plus an increase in the graded element. This has been the reason for the delay. It is on this complicated manipulation for the first time of these two areas that we have been at work, and it will be found in the White Paper when it is published.
Our decision to raise the graded element and put a portion of the increase on it, and not merely on the flat rate, makes urgent the problem I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. If I increase the graded element of the Conservative graded scheme, what do I do about the graded benefit? In order to explain this problem, I should remind hon. Members briefly how the Conservative swindle, as I have described it, works. It is constructed on the "brick" system. Each £7 10s. 0d. that a man pays in graduated contributions, matched by the same payment from his employer, earns him 6d. a week pension. As we pointed out at the time, the weakness of the scheme is that that will still be 6d. 30 years later. The pension is not revalued in terms of money values at the time it is paid out. Therefore, though the contributions are of great value to the Chancellor, because he gets the full value, what one draws out may be virtually worthless, and certainly keep one far below supplementary benefit level.
This pension brick remains fixed in cash terms however long the interval between payment and receipt of the pension. The lack of any provision to re-value the pension to keep pace with changes in prices or earnings has always seemed to me inconsistent with what a State pension should provide. The arrangements for contracting out of the graduated scheme were so constructed, however, as to take no account of the possibility that in future years the cash value of the pension brick would need to be improved.
It was the difficulties in relation to the contracted-out employees which lead us to the conclusion, in paragraph 101 of the White Paper, that graduated pensions earned under the present scheme would


have to be excluded from the biennial review, which has been a feature of the new scheme. It is this proposal which has raised a storm of indignation from those employers and employees who had faithfully and loyally stayed contracted-in—and they are the great majority of firms and employees.
They said, "Look what has happened. We have been loyal, we have been in since the beginning of the scheme and you are winding it up in 1972". During that period the value of the pension has dwindled, because of the reasons given. But the employer who contracted-out—that is instead of paying a contribution, retained his money, which could be invested in equities—did extremely well. The pension fund, which would go into the swollen equity market, could give to those members outside the scheme something equivalent to dynamism, whereas the person in the scheme was getting nothing. They said, "Before you wind this scheme up you must give us justice."
Justice would be—and this is the proposal put to us—what is called the dynamism of the bricks from 1972 on. That is to say, every sixpence or whatever is collected would be revalued along with the flat-rate pensions. It always seemed illogical that we revalued the flat-rate pension every two years, but this little Conservative piece stuck to it was left like an appendix, dying away smaller and smaller, when everything else was changing. The proposition was, "Will you revalue that as well?" We think that is common justice to the people in the scheme. It becomes urgent to consider this problem at a time when we are proposing to upgrade the graded element of the contribution. I find it difficult to upgrade that element without giving something in return in benefit for what we have upgraded. My bias is therefore in favour of upgrading.
I have to admit that those who are contracted out do have, and are making, a powerful and serious case. They say that they made a contract on a certain basis and that we are not entitled to change the terms of the contract, although I think that in winding up a concern like a pension scheme we are entitled to do so. The debate has started. I thought it was my duty to tell the House of the debate because it involves the nationalised industries. It involves 65,000

pension schemes, which are lined up and working it out. I have already had long consultations with the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the National Association of Pension Schemes and the Life Offices Association, and I shall be seeing others too.
We need to be careful about this. Whatever we do someone will be disappointed; that is one of our difficulties. Those who are contracted-in will be bitterly resentful of a Government which, as they say, have done nothing for them before the scheme is wound up. As I have said, this is a pension scheme, or a White Paper with green edges. It is true that we have to listen to the discussion a bit later, but it will be essential that when after the Recess we are considering the full details, the "across the range" details of the White Paper and the Bill we should also incorporate a statement on the future. That statement I am not ready to make yet, but I hope that discussions will be completed in time to make it soon after the Recess.

Hon. Members: Swindle!

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The Chancellor did not complete the picture. What we may call the dirty end of the stick, he left to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We have the most astonishing position here where the Chancellor in his Budget Statement announces increases in taxation amounting to something like £340 million. No wonder he did not say anything about the increases in taxation, which is in effect what the contributions are for the workers of the country, when they amount to a far bigger figure than that which he is actually raising in the Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman has lifted some of the veil this evening and has said that the additional sum required is no less than £430 million—a quite significantly larger figure than the very steep increase in taxation announced in the Budget. For the working people, those who pay their stamp week by week, this additional impost has to be added to the impost which has already been put on by the Budget. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's calculations it appears that even this vast sum of £430 million extra may be something of an under-estimate of requirements in view of the other


figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It would be unfortunate if we were stuck with a wrong figure, and this is what the hon. Gentleman is using. My right hon. Friend said that there was a total amount of £430 million which had to be raised. He said that £70 million of this would be the normal Exchequer supplement, and that £360 million was the amount to be raised by contributions. It would be a pity if the higher figure were thought to be associated with the amount that is to be brought in from increased revenue from contributors.

Mr. Dean: I have taken that second figure into account and am coming to it soon. The point about the £430 figure is that this is additional money required. It will have to come out of the pockets of people, either through the weekly stamp paid by employer or employee, or out of taxation. The total additional burden on the people is £430 million, this is my first point. In other words the Secretary of State is raising a bigger sum from the people than the Chancellor is raising in his Budget. No wonder the Chancellor did not want to spoil the effect by announcing that! He left the dirty job to be done by the Secretary of State.
The second figure that the Minister of State mentioned is £360 million, which the right hon. Gentleman calculated would have to be raised by contributions, in other words from employers and employees. Doing a quick calculation I wonder if this figure will be adequate. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, and the Chancellor in his Budget speech, that £250 mililon would be required for National Insurance benefits. I assume that this includes all the National Insurance benefits, long and short term, plus the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I also assume that in addition to that there will be an equivalent in war pensions. If it is on roughly the same basis as last time, I calculate that it will cost somewhere between £12 million and £13 million extra.
I will also assume, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed this,

that there will be an increase in supplementary benefits too. If that were to be on the same basis as the increase last time I calculate that it will cost an additional £44 million a year. The total figure involved is something like £307 million. That is the additional amount which I calculate, from the right hon. Gentleman's figures, will be required to meet the increased costs of benefits which will be introduced in the autumn, plus the equivalent increases in war pensions and supplementary benefits.
If that is the case, as I calculate it, the sum left over to meet the imbalance—and the right hon. Gentleman said that this deficit was one which would increase substantially between now and 1972 unless further action were taken—is something like £120 million. I very much doubt, if my calculations are correct, whether that sum will be adequate. If it is not, it means that we can look forward to still further increases in contributions before the new scheme comes into operation, without any increase in benefits, but simply to keep the Fund in balance. I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is painting a very grim picture about the additional costs of these benefits, but I doubt whether it is grim enough, and whether still further increases in contributions will not be required from the people between now and the possible introduction of the new scheme in 1972.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was having considerable difficulty in deciding how these contributions were to be found to meet this substantial Bill. No wonder he has had difficulties about this and no wonder it has taken him a long time. It was clear that he would reject the idea of a flat rate increase in contributions. He is on record on many occasions as saying that to increase the flat-rate contribution would be a totally unfair burden on the lower-paid members of the community. This is an understandable and acceptable argument. Having agreed that it is not practicable to offload a greater proportion of the cost on to the employer—and that the Chancellor will not pay more than his percentage, quite naturally—through taxation, then the right hon. Gentleman was inevitably left with some way of juggling around with some form of graduated contribution in return for a flat rate benefit.
This looks to me very much what it will amount to. We shall clearly want to


see, and shall study with great interest, the details when they are produced. From the details we have had from the right hon. Gentleman I am almost speechless when I think of his words about a Tory swindle. If a Tory Government introduced a swindle into pension schemes, I do not know how to describe the situation which I suspect we shall see with the relationship between contributions and benefit when the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper and the Bill are published either next week or shortly after the Recess.
The other matter on which I want clarification is what appears to be the new doctrine enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman about the way in which contributions and charges raised in the various services for which he is responsible should be used. We had the most astonishing statement reported in the newspapers this morning strongly suggesting that the increase in charges for teeth and spectacles would not be used to finance improvements in the service for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible or to prevent cuts which would otherwise take place but would be siphoned off to another Ministry for a completely different purpose; namely, to assist it with comprehensive schools.
Not only is that a strange doctrine but it completely contradicts the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman himself on 5th May when, in answer to questions following his statement, he made crystal clear that the increase of £3½ million in revenue to the Health Service would prevent cuts which would otherwise have to be made in that service.
We are entitled to an explanation—this is closely relevant to the debate—because, if money raised for a service for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible is to be siphoned off and used on a completely different service, how can we be sure that the same will not apply to contributions raised through the National Insurance Scheme? It is all very well for the Minister of State to chuckle away about this. I hope that he will take it rather more seriously than he and his right hon. Friend appear to be doing. It could be a highly dangerous doctrine.
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say—and this is what he appeared to be doing yesterday—that he

can put on charges or contributions and the money will not go to improve the service for which he is responsible but may be siphoned off elsewhere, we have an entirely new and most undesirable doctrine entering into our social service arrangements. We are at least entitled to know, so that the House and the country may judge what both the right hon. Gentleman's statements and the additional burdens which he imposes actually mean.
I am immensely disturbed by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made and by its implications for the stiff additional burden of contributions to be put on employers and employees, with very little prospect, in my view, that they will be adequate to meet the commitments for increased pensions and other benefits which we all recognise to be necessary in view of the substantial rise in the cost of living under this Government.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for having announced in advance of the Second Reading debate on his new Bill the figures applicable to it, so that we have an opportunity to study them.
I listened with no less attention to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and his noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), and I tried to relate their speeches to the Motion. I was puzzled to know what it is that the Government are alleged to have done wrong. Having heard them, I remain puzzled. If the Government had announced these increases in the Budget statement as though the question of cost did not arise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would have been irresponsible in the highest degree.
We all know that politicians do not give benefits to the public, whether they come from the Government or from measures suggested by hon. Members opposite at the very time when they urge us to cut public expenditure. This is not largesse distributed by politicians. Benefits of this kind arise from the resources created by the work of our constituents. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear that the increases would have to be paid for; he said so


specifically. He even made some assessment of the cost.
As I understand it, it is not disputed that the arithmetic relating to the contributions remained to be done and there was still more work to be done on the survey. In the circumstances, I gather that all that is alleged against the Government is that they ought not to have announced the increase until they were in a position to give precise details of how they were to be financed. What it amounts to is that they should not have offered this piece of good news to retirement pensioners. They should have kept it a closely guarded secret, as a matter of top security, to be kept, at all costs, from foreign espionage agents, until they were in a position to announce the details of how it was to be financed.
I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite have acted wisely. The public may conclude that, if that is the worst they have to say about the Government, there cannot be a great deal wrong with the Government.
If the Opposition had said that, perhaps, the increase was a little less than generous, some of us on this side might have felt inclined to be sympathetic with their view. It is perfectly true that the real purchasing power of pensions after these increases will be 20 per cent. higher than when hon. Members opposite were in power. But history may decide that 20 per cent. better than the previous Government still leaves a great deal to be desired. Yet that is not the criticism made.
It certainly convinces me of this. From time to time those of us on this side of the House find matter in announcements from the Government to criticise. We have in common with hon. Members opposite that not everything announced by the Government is beyond reproach, but there our common ground ends. I am convinced that my hon. Friends and I are not likely to advance the causes which we have at heart by substituting for the present Government a Government consisting of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It has not been suggested that these increases ought not to have taken place, and if they ought to have taken place, they have to be paid for. And the only question which arises is how that may

best be done. In the Budget debate it was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have budgeted for a deficit. If I pursued that line of country I should be ruled out of order, and in any event the House has decided that we are not to pass the burden of paying for these increases to our children.
I take issue with my hon. Friend as to whether a greater proportion of the burden might not have been placed on income tax. From time to time I have queried the advisability of the whole contributory system of paying for social service benefits. Income tax is by definition a method of imposing burdens in proportion to people's ability to bear them. My right hon. Friend has taken a commendable step in that direction by imposing graded contributions, but they still take into account only differences in earnings. They do not distinguish between sizes of families, or the costs of living in different areas, or between families with no special needs and those which include a disabled member. These may well be the kinds of inequalities which can be put right only by a national wages policy, but it might have been a step in the right direction if a greater proportion of the burden had been imposed on income tax rather than contributions.
I do not believe, as hon. Members opposite appear to believe, that we are a highly over-taxed country. About 64 per cent. of our national income is spent privately as against 61 per cent. in the United States and 57 per cent. in Germany. It is also worth noting that the effect of having a contributory system is that all too often it shuts out people from social security benefits because they have failed to meet the contributory requirements, just in the case of those who have already had the rawest deal from life.
On reflection, I would probably go some of the way with my right hon. Friend. I appreciate the force of the argument that when there is a contributory element, people feel a sense of entitlement, which is a healthy and satisfying feeling, and that it might discourage future Chancellors of the Exchequer from seeking to reduce benefits. And it may be true that people like to see some connection between their contributions and their benefits.
But do the Government take the view that the proportion of 18 per cent. Exchequer contribution in the new pension scheme is sacrosanct? If it is not, might it be possible to assess a figure in excess of 70 per cent. as attributable to income tax in order that the contribution from wage packets may be a little reduced?
I cannot speak for the constituents of other hon. Members, but my constituents have told me again and again that they believe that retirement pensions are too low, particularly for pensioners who will not benefit from the scheme announced by my right hon. Friend a few months ago. When I have explained that if they want increases in pensions they must be prepared to pay, they have said straightforwardly and honestly that they are prepared to pay. I echo something which was said a few months ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He begged my right hon. Friend to ensure that the contributions for the new scheme were assessed at a realistic figure, so that we would not find that the scheme had run into deficit and in the process had imposed a burden on our children. It would be wrong if we were to maintain our standard of living at a level higher than we can collectively afford at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
We are discussing tonight those sections of the population who sometimes find it difficult to speak for themselves and to form pressure groups. One section whom we should bear in mind as not being in a position to state its case is posterity. If my right hon. Friend the Minister assesses the contributions at a realistic figure, I hope that he will not get complaints from this side of the House that the cost is too high. Some of us on this side of the House may from time to time be critical of my right hon. Friend when he imposes burdens on those who are not in a position to bear them—on the older members of the population, those who normally need dentures and spectacles. But when he seeks to impose burdens on the young to give a fair deal to the old, burdens on the fit to give a fair deal to the unfit, and burdens on the lucky to give a fair deal to the unfortunate, we on this side will not complain.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: There is no doubt that what we have heard from the Secretary of State means that we are in a very serious mess concerning pension policy. I support the Motion, perhaps for a slightly different reason from that put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I made a note in the middle of his speech saying that he was not being particularly constructive. I proposed to ask him what he would do and whether he would, for instance, again introduce a graduated pension scheme. I was utterly horrified when the Secretary of State stole my words and did precisely that. All that the Government are proposing to do is to out-swindle the Tories in their swindle. They christened it a swindle, and I believe that it was. Those of us who have asked why the Government kept the graduated pension scheme when they took office committed to getting rid of it know now that it was to save them when they got into the appalling mess which has been described today.
It is almost a burden to have to say in debates on the National Insurance Fund that I was right, but many people have for some time pointed out in the House—I certainly have—that the trends, such as earlier retirement, sickness absenteeism and an ageing population, inevitably meant that the National Insurance Fund would run heavily into the red. These trends have been obvious for many years. The Secretary of State's statement this evening is not just an indictment of his Government for having done nothing in the last few years. It is an indictment of Governments of both parties which have had the management of our Insurance Fund for many years. It was precisely because the situation was so obvious, certainly to me, two or three years ago that we introduced the dynamic idea of the payroll tax to finance our social security scheme. As long as the Government try to finance this burgeoning expenditure by means of a static undynamic contribution, obviously they will run into trouble.
I have said, and I repeat, that I am against the whole business of having to come to the House and make these announcements at two- or three-yearly intervals. I would much rather have the


pension rate tied by law to the average wage in industry. I should like to see the rates go up automatically at, say, six-monthly or yearly intervals but not to have to come begging whatever Government may be in power for ad hoc increases whenever it seems that we can no longer allow the old-age pensioners to do without them. If one is to have automatic increases, one must have a contribution or tax system which will allow the income for the increases automatically to rise at the same time.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman—it is by no means the first time we have been told, and it has been obvious to many of us for many years—why the Insurance Fund has run into the red in the way that it has; pensioners are growing as a proportion of the total population and working people have to pay more for pensions in the future. This would not be catastrophic if we had economic growth. It becomes catastrophic because we have had stagnation for far too long.
It does not matter too much to an individual if he is told that the cost of his mother's or father's pension will add an additional amount to his contribution provided that it comes out of additional income. If he knows that his income is rising at the same time, it is not too bad. As with an individual, so with the country as a whole. If only we had been financing these increases all the time by a dynamic growth economy, there would not have been too great a danger.
I foresee real social danger ahead in this situation, however, and particularly the situation of the ageing population, because unless we can get an economic growth to take away the worst effect of these increases, we will have an almost revolutionary social situation where people simply down tools and refuse to pay the increased contributions which are to be put upon them.
The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was more sickness absenteeism. The last time we debated the National Insurance Fund in any detail, I begged the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Minister of Social Security to set up an investigation into the reasons for the dramatic increase in sickness absenteeism. The right hon. Lady waived the suggestion aside and

said that it was impossible for Governments to take decisions on the basis of market research. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it would have been absolutely right to have set up that kind of investigation. It is right to do so now.
We chase our tails around this House trying to find out how to cure the problem of 4 million working days lost through industrial stoppages. What about the 300 million working days lost through sickness absenteeism or the 23 million working days lost through industrial injuries?
Let us take simply the 300 million days. If a tiny proportion of the effort which is to be spent in trying to reform our industrial processes and get the Industrial Relations Bill through the House was spent on trying to sort out the problem of the 300 million days that are lost through sickness absenteeism, we would have a much better pay-off in the long run. The Government had better take note of this, because I should hate to see the National Insurance Fund in the red for a third time and to be faced with another large bill.
It is time that the problem was investigated. There have been considerably earlier retirements, which result in drawings on the Fund if people are over pensionable age. This again is something which we must look at carefully. If it is an increasing trend, and it may well be, the Insurance Fund will run into the red whatever we do. The Minister must not think that the extension of the Tory swindle will do the job. I do not believe that it will. It is an indictment of the last Conservative Government that they thought that the last Tory swindle when it was introduced would do the job. They should have seen then that it would manifestly fail to measure up to the task ahead.
Neither do I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in being optimistic about the chances of his new scheme contained in the White Paper with green edges solving the problem. I do not believe that scheme will bail us out of the serious financial problems which I see ahead for the Fund or for any financing of the social security system. I see ahead a dangerous situation, not just financially but socially, and we must consider this problem of the long-term social trends in this light.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish first to comment on the rather novel idea put forward by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that the suggestion that the increased charges for spectacles and dentures should be used for schools was a most dangerous precedent, and that money should always be used for the purpose for which it was raised. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that money raised on beer should be spent on bigger and better breweries and bigger and better pubs. I do not accept this idea.
We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having spelt out to us what the options are. This has never before been done properly. He explained how we could achieve what we wished to achieve and how it could be paid for. He explained the methods of taxation, both fair and unfair, the poll tax and the graduated system. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite threw up their hands in horror and laughed at the astronomical sums mentioned by my right hon. Friend we have yet to have a suggestion from them how these increases can be paid for. The question must be put squarely to them: do they, or do they not want these increases and, if they do, how will they pay for them? They may say that they would never have reached this point, but I tend to suspect that approach because of their record on pensions. We are faced with this situation and the Government must deal with it.
If increased pensions are to be paid across the Board, they must be paid for, and the £430 million must be raised. I feel that the Exchequer contribution could have been more generous. A system of taxation which is based upon ability to pay is the fairest system, as one does not pay unless one has the money to do so. The figures given by my right hon. Friend of the percentage of income in terms of flat rate contribution dramatically illustrated the inequity of the present stamp system. I should like to have seen a greater contribution from the Exchequer.
My right hon. Friend, although he dangled the bait and the ideas before us, left us in the dark on how the proposed graduated system will work. I should

prefer a system which advances progressively, with the low wage earner paying little, if anything, on the stamp, and a proportionate increase up the scale. There will be people who will complain that they do not like it. They object to having to pay the money.
I have always found that if I sit down with my constituents and spell out what it means—explain where the money is going, what it is being used for, and show that it is necessary to have this increase in the stamp—they are more ready to accept it. It is a question of explaining that this is not—as so many hon. Members opposite seem to think—just another piece of vicious taxation; this is an opportunity of insuring oneself for one's old age, for one's sickness, and for periods of unemployment.
I have found that when I have talked to my constituents about questions that interest them—questions of the disabled, the mentally handicapped, and others who are less fortunate and fit than they are—they are prepared to carry this burden, which becomes progressively less onerous as they become aware of the benefits that their payments are making not only for themselves in the future but for the less fortunate citizens around them.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, as I welcomed the statement made by the Chancellor in the Budget, but I regret the fact that it has taken such a long time to introduce a system based upon the ability to earn—a system which will contain within it a reasonable redistribution of money.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, this debate has concentrated mainly on pensions, although the Motion refers to all sorts of National Insurance and other benefits. I therefore assume that it will not be out of order to refer briefly to some other benefits, since although we have not been vouchsafed the information that these benefits will be increased in proportion to the proposed increase in pensions we may surely assume that they will be.
Even the remarkable non-statement of the right hon. Gentleman referred mostly to pensions contributions. It seems from what the Minister deigned to reveal that


we are soon to have a system of graduated pensions to pay for flat-rate benefits. This is a far cry from the grandiose scheme in the White Paper, published not long ago. We are now to have a graduated contribution to provide a flat-rate benefit at a subsistence level. That is the exact opposite to what we were promised.
I want to concentrate the attention of the House for a few minutes on unemployment benefit rather than pensions matters. The question of unemployment was not mentioned once in the two hours 20 minutes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were lucky enough to have on 15th April. This was rather like a critic reviewing "Hamlet" without mentioning the Prince of Denmark, or a political critic today writing of the political situation without mentioning the Home Secretary.
Unemployment was mentioned once or twice in the ensuing debate, but generally this nasty subject was swept under the carpet. This is understandable in present circumstances, but it would not be fair to the House to let this opportunity go by without reminding it of the facts. They are plain to see. We have had unemployment of over half a million now for two years, and it has been as high as 600,000 several times. Unfilled vacancies are running at about 300,000 and the cost to the taxpayer of unemployment benefit has increased from £58 million in 1966 to £125 million in 1968.
These facts are obvious, but what is not so wellknown or appreciated in the country is that this Government, for their own reasons, are deliberately keeping unemployment at that figure. This may be disputed, so I want to state the proof for it. On the first page of the Financial Statement issued after the Budget, we read:
Relatively fast growth in output during 1968 was reflected in the labour market. Overtime working increased and towards the end of the year unemployment was falling sharply and unfilled vacancies were rising. It was against this background, combined with the need for a vast improvement in the balance of payments, that further measures to restrain consumption were required in November.
Those further measures required that the unemployment figure, which was falling so dangerously for the Government's plans, had to be increased again.
Last July the then Minister of Social Security saw that there was a certain amount of cheating in claims for supplementary benefit by unemployed people, and with great forethought and skill—I have commented on this before—in a statement on 25th July she said that she intended to ensure that benefits were not claimed unjustly and improperly at Ministry offices. She said that two steps would be taken. One was that all new claims from unemployed people under 45 would be carefully scrutinised, and if a man was not genuinely seeking work, he would be told that he must do so or his Supplementary benefit would not be paid.
The second step she took was to announce that most fit young single people would be told that, whenever work was available in their locality, they should take it and that after four weeks without work they would not be paid a supplementary allowance. This, to my mind and in the view of the whole House, was a proper announcement and one on which the right hon. Lady should be applauded.
Since then, I have many times tried to discover from the Department the result of this action, but have received no information except the number of people who have been screened in this way. I have tried to discover how many were found to have been claiming benefit improperly but I have never had the information.
But what disturbs me is that, with this recognition in the Ministry that action was necessary to cut the cost of supplementary benefits to the unemployed, no parallel action has been taken by the Department of Employment and Productivity to ensure that claimants for unemployment benefit in the first year of their unemployment should be screened in this way. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has returned. If ever he has a spare moment—I mean, before the General Election—it would be a good idea for him to spend some time in an employment exchange. After the General Election, he may be doing that anyway, but I suggest that, in his capacity as a Minister, he should sit behind the counter for a few hours to see what happens.
This is a very revealing experience. I was lucky enough last Christmas to spend a fortnight at my local labour


exchange listening to the interviews with claimants for unemployment benefit. It was clear to me, as it would be to any hon. Member, that the claimants were in many cases getting away with murder. They were treated with great kindness and compassion by the clerks, but they recognised this and by setting almost impossible conditions for the employment they wanted they continued to draw their unemployment benefit for the first year without ever intending to take a job.
The Secretary of State referred today to the earnings-related benefits which such people have drawn. I welcome this, but the fact that it applies for six months means that there is not much incentive to find a new job in that period. The earnings-related benefit rate is being taken advantage of by unemployed people. There are all sorts of devices for drawing benefit improperly. One can say that one wants a job at £30 within 10 minutes walk of one's home and refuse anything else. One can say that one wants a job which is just not obtainable in that place.
When I visited my employment exchange, a gentleman who had obviously seen better days, judging from his clothes and his whole appearance, said that the only job that he would accept was one as a croupier. I doubt whether he had ever been a croupier. There are such jobs available in Liverpool, but I doubt whether, if he had applied, he would have been offered one. As long as he insisted that he was a croupier and wanted that type of job he was able to draw unemployment benefit because such a job could not be found for him. One can make oneself so unattractive to one's prospective employer that, on being interviewed, one will be turned down. There are many other ways of remaining uneemployed.
All of these devices were foreseen in the National Insurance Act, 1965, in which the legislators, in their wisdom, stated:
… after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which he becomes unemployed as in the circumstances of the case is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in his usual occupation".
A great deal of money is to be saved on unemployment benefit simply by telling clerks at employment exchanges that after a reasonable time—it might be a month—

of a man not having accepted any of the jobs offered to him, he should be told, "You have had your chance. There are jobs available which you could do, and while you may not want to do them, you must either accept one of them or forfeit your unemployment benefit."

Mr. James Dempsey: That happens now.

Mr. Fortescue: When did the hon. Gentleman last sit behind a counter at an employment exchange and hear what goes on?

Mr. Dempsey: I admit that I have not sat behind such a counter. However, I have been the chairman of a committee responsible for seeing that those who require work get work Without exception, when we told men that we could not find jobs in their particular skills but could find other jobs for them which they either had to take or have their insurance benefit disallowed, they took the jobs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he is recommending has been standard practice in Lanarkshire for many years.

Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Gentleman is referring to cases which were brought to his attention. I am referring to cases which arise at employment exchanges where the clerks show claimants a generous and compassionate attitude which allows them to get away with refusing to work for considerable periods.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate how much the hon. Gentleman knows about this subject from practical experience. Would he perhaps agree—I speak with knowledge of supplementary benefits—that the clerks at employment exchanges tend to take a certain view according to the amount of unemployment in the area? In an area of full employment they tend to take the view which the hon. Gentleman is recommending. In an area of relatively heavy unemployment they probably reasonably realise that not quite the same view need be taken.

Mr. Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but in Liverpool, the area about which I am speaking, we have a comparitively high unemployment rate. Although the unemployment figures are running at about 3·9 per cent, many unskilled jobs are available. For example, about 200 Liverpool buses are off the roads because drivers and conductors cannot be found to man them.


It seems that the people of Liverpool do not want to work on the buses, even though many who could be trained for this work are drawing unemployment benefit.
I have calculated that the cost of increasing the unemployment benefit by 10s. a week in November will be £15 million a year. That sum could be paid for if the number of fully unemployed were reduced by about 10 per cent. I therefore suggest that before the right hon. Gentleman sets his mind to raising £15 million for this purpose by increasing contributions, he should consider the possibility of instructing, through his right hon. Friend—although that would be necessary, unemployment benefits are his responsibility, since they are paid through employment exchanges—clerks at employment exchanges to tighten up and ensure that claimants for unemployment benefit do not receive payment for more than a certain time without their cases and attitudes being carefully examined. After all, instructions of this type are issued to clerks in the offices of his Ministry. The decision to increase contributions is being taken too facilely, and I hope that my comments will be borne in mind by the right hon. Gentleman.
As for pensions, I agree that something drastic must be done. When one considers the other benefits, however, much more should be done administratively before one need take the last refuge of increasing taxation.
Am I right in believing that the Government are not entirely enthusiastic about lowering the rate of unemployment? Do their old Socialist dogmas and theories now reside in a supreme being in Washington, which is demanding that the level of unemployment be kept quite high to demonstrate that we are deflating the economy?

9.14 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I was shocked, as were all hon. Members, by the cynicism of the Secretary of State's explanation of the Chancellor's extraordinary omission to give an indication of the method by which the pensions increase would be financed and by the announcement of the enormous extent of the deficit which has

evidently opened wide in the National Insurance Fund.
But more shocking to me than the action of the Government in these matters is the existence of a system which makes it possible to offer to the public benefits in one speech, without any explanation of how they will be paid for, and then, in a speech on a subsequent date, to give a vague and indefinite suggestion of the way in which the money may be raised.
It has been one of the problems of the National Insurance Fund from its very initiation by my great countryman, Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, that its budget has been incomprehensible. We all remember the slogan of "9d. for 4d." with which Lloyd George launched the scheme. The swindling element was there from the beginning, because it was perfectly plain that honesty could not go hand in hand with such a slogan. It was perfectly plain that it was a political stunt from the beginning. It seems unfortunate that people's entitlement, people's money, people's contributions should be wrapped up in a political stunt, and not in strictly correct mathematical principles.
I am reminded of the jingle:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.
Just look at the stage that National Insurance has come to now after 60 years of deception. The public think primarily of the benefits. People have been taught to regard National Insurance as a bran tub. Carefully, over the years, politicians have been obliged to prevent the public from thinking of costs, so we have a built-in attitude among the voters all the time to demand more and more from National Insurance because they have been taught to forget that they themselves have to pay for it.
The second dangerous fact, where so much money is involved, is that even in a mature democracy such as ours, the accounts of the Fund are absolutely incomprehensible. We have reached the stage, unfortunately, where the whole contraption is collapsing as we watch. None of us can be glad about that. With National Insurance it is obvious that we have reached virtually the point of bankruptcy and breakdown. Here is a system with no funds—because the funds are


only make-believe; with no commitments—because no one can predict 10 years hence what his entitlement under National Insurance will be; and with no principles at all.
And now the Government's problem is how to raise £430 million. I commend the courage of the Secretary of State in deciding to tackle the problem with one stroke instead of with two strokes. That was the right way to do it.
What ways are open to him? He ran through them, but he did not say all that he might have done about the different methods. Last year the Government resorted to taking £200 million from the reserves. That was pure inflation, as no one was able seriously to deny. I suppose that the supervision of the International Monetary Fund has now come so close that resorting to that particular tap is no longer possible. But we still have had no explanation of whether that £200 million is to be paid back from increased contributions or from the Revenue, even after this lapse of time.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of drawing more money from employees. The employees were always, from the very beginning, part of the "9d. for 4d." They were expected to put in 4d. No one quite knew at the time, or knows now, precisely why the employers were expected to put in 3d., or why the Revenue was expected to put in 2d. All that was veiled in mystery. Yet these strange anomalies which were imported into that first scandalous National Insurance prospectus are with us still.
If the £430 million is to be raised from employees, the problem at once arises as to which of the two coexistent systems should be used. If the extra cost is laid on the flat-rate contribution, the Secretary of State will be doing what he himself has condemned and, in the view of everyone who has studied the subject, has quite rightly condemned. The flat rate poll tax is bitterly regressive, and so far from National Insurance being the cure for family poverty, the contribution is now so high that it has become one of the contributory causes of it.
From the White Paper, which many of us have studied with the greatest possible care, we have deduced that in future it is the Secretary of State's

aim, which we support, that those below the national average wage should have their burden lightened so far as it is possible to do so; people earning up to about £18 a week, I think, under the original White Paper plan would have some remission of their burden, because the flat rate system would go and the graduated system would leave them somewhat better off than they are now.
This is an excellent idea, but if in the meantime there has to be a temporary increase in the flat-rate contribution it will make the jolt as we change from the existing system to the new system ever more marked. I therefore quite understand why the Government were not able to screw the £430 million from employees via the flat-rate contribution; they could not possibly do so.
Then there is the question of the graduated scheme. The Government, wrongly, are crucifying themselves here on the principle that, if there are graduated contributions, there must also be graduated benefits. I shall return to this question later on. While the Government persist in this quite unnecessary attitude, they are simply running into further problems.
I come to the possibility of raising more from the employers. What the Secretary of State did not say was that the burden on employers already, thanks to the Budget increase in S.E.T., is such that there would be an outcry and a revolt if this extra charge was put on them, and it might be impossible to raise that money from employers, because the burden of taxation would become so severe that the system would break down.
Finally, there is the wretched taxpayer's contribution to National Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman glibly said, as though it were just a matter of the simplest arithmetic, that £70 million would be taken from the taxpayers—one has only to snap one's fingers and £70 million comes from the Budget; nobody knows exactly how it is financed or paid for; nobody can find it in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. It is just the way the Government carry on—the taxpayer can lose £70 million; transfer it to National Insurance, and nobody need be any the wiser. I can see that the suggestion might have been made that the taxpayer's contribution should have


been even more than £70 million; but the Exchequer has evidently stuck at that.
We are moving towards graduation, and the only graduated scheme available is the old Conservative graduated scheme. The Secretary of State, eating all his words, has now decided that the stone which the builders rejected must become the head of the corner. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, the Conservative graduated scheme is made up of bricks. It is now made up of a large number of bricks and the right hon. Gentleman will find that he is ramming his head against a brick wall if he thinks that he can tinker with the arithmetic of it. Although the arithmetic may be hard, and although it is easy to say that a system which simply gives a person back what he has put in, without large increments of interest and without allowance for inflation, can be called a hard scheme; but it is at any rate a mathematically precise one. If the right hon. Gentleman begins to lay his hands on that scheme and tries to take more out of it than his is putting in, he will find that he is dashing his head against a brick wall, because it is a scheme built upon principle. If it is once decided to water down the principle of that scheme, the repercussions will be so great that no amount of blarneying talk with the Life Offices Association, or the Association of Pension Funds, or the representatives of employers, will make it possible to hide what is happening.
I hope that the Secretary of State, in the dilemma in which he finds himself, will be prepared to think again about the principles in his White Paper, because they are not tenable. He should look at the whole of the basic principles which govern this tremendous cash movement which goes on in National Insurance. In his White Paper he has muddled two elements together which ought at all times to be kept separate. One element is the principle of charity, which gave rise to the concept of National Insurance, which is based on the idea of money transfer from the fortunate to the unfortunate. The other element is the concept of self-help, which in this century has given rise to the whole movement towards national savings. The concepts of charity and of self-help are incompatible, but the Secre-

tary of State is trying to run them into one great scheme.
We have seen today the problems which he is giving himself by so doing. If he would only concentrate upon the need, through the National Insurance system, to relieve poverty, and would neglect the idea that National Insurance should be directed towards interfering with the whole movement of private savings and personal provision for retirement through people's own foresight, he would find his finances a great deal easier to manage. I will give him some brief words of advice. Do not compete with the private sector in things which the private sector does best. There is no point in trying to devise, as in the White Paper, a backstairs way of taking into the State's hand the benefits of people's natural wish to provide for themselves. Secondly, do not raise taxes in order to give the most money to the people with the least need.
It is possible to approach the problem of eliminating poverty in three ways: by selectivity, which gives the most money to the people with the greatest need; by universal benefits, which treat everyone the same; and by graduated benefits which give the most money to the people with the least need. The British people will revolt against more and more taxes being pushed upon them to satisfy the nostrum of the Secretary of State about this. He must think again about this idea of State graduated benefits right across the board.
I am not saying that there is not a place for graduated benefits, particularly for maintenance or income during short-term periods of sickness and unemployment. The concept in his White Paper is quite wrong if he feels that he will fasten on us for all time a State system which would take away from the private sector this function of assisting people to provide for themselves.
Thirdly, he should take the element of redistribution completely out of the rest of the Budget. The Budget could be defined as a double-yolked egg in this respect. Part of what is raised in taxation is required to pay for what the Government need to do for themselves. Part of what is raised in taxation is used to redistribute money again to the rest of the community. The Government are


acting in a two-fold capacity. First, they are raising money for themselves and, secondly, they are raising it in order to pass it back, probably in many cases to the very same people who have subscribed it. They are running these two operations into one and doing them simultaneously. I ask the Secretary of State to look at this entire redistributive activity of the State, which is now incorporated in the Budget, to separate it completely out, and to study the net effect of what is happening.
Some months ago I put down a Question asking what was the net effect of all State compulsory transactions with the individual, in both directions. I was informed by the Treasury that it could not give the reply because it had never worked the figures out. After I pressed the matter they did, with great courtesy, work the figures out for me. But it took them several months to let me know the simple transactions, which are already obligatory, and what their effect was.
The national minimum wage study, which is an extremely interesting paper, has some rudimentary tables arriving at the net effect of taxes, National Insurance contributions, family allowances and the other types of benefit to which the individual is entitled. But it is only at the most rudimentary stage. While the Government have not done their simple sums they will always be at sea when facing the problems of long-term National Insurance policy.
Will the Secretary of State define the purpose of National Insurance, because I am sure that at present he has not got a very clear idea as to what it is for. Let him clarify the obligations of the National Insurance Fund as he sees them; let him spell them out. I hope that he will come to the House and do so. Let him also clarify what he considers the sources of its income ought to be. Let him look at this great simultaneous movement of cash into the Exchequer and out again, let him understand all the different ramifications of these inward and outward movements and then he will be able to set out his National Insurance charges in a form which our democracy will be able to bear. If he refuses to do that, as I can see from his face he intends to do, then National Insurance will remain in the eyes of the public an incomprehensible swindle.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not think we could have had a better justification for this debate than the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are still very little wiser as to the details of how the pensions announced in the Budget Statement will be paid for, or to whom they will be paid. It is true that some of the veils have been lifted, but there is still a great deal to be disclosed. No employer, no employee, no self-employed person has as yet the slightest idea of the additional contribution he will have to pay, and he is no wiser as a result of the Secretary of State's speech.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) that perhaps this Motion was out of place, because, he said, if this was the worst that could be said of the Government, then we might perhaps be misleading the public. The only implication of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he knows that there is a very great deal worse to be laid at the door of this Government.

Mr. Archer: I rise merely to correct the record. What I said was that the public might conclude that if that was the worst right hon. Genelemen opposite could say of the Government, then there was not much wrong with the Government.

Mr. Jenkin: The implication is that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great deal more wrong with the Government. Before I develop the case that we have made in this Motion, there are three points I want to press on the Minister of State arising out of the speech made by his right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) asked the Secretary of State whether his estimates, which he said were based on present trends, were based on current levels of unemployment. This is immensely important, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer that. Second, the Secretary of State told us that the Exchequer contribution to the total sum of the £430 million, which will have to be raised, will be £70 million in a full year. That means that there will be about £20 million, or perhaps a little under, to be raised in the last quarter of 1969–70. In addition to that, I would


estimate that we shall need about £15 million for war pensions and supplementary benefits. Will the Minister of State tell the House whether these sums, together about £35 million, are provided for in the estimates on the basis of which the Chancellor made his Budget Statement?
Third, we come to perhaps the most curious thing of all in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the question of timing. No doubt there were a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite who heard their right hon. Friend's speech upstairs yesterday. To judge from the way the Press has reported that meeting very fully this morning, everyone gained the impression that the White Paper would be published before Whitsun and that the Bill would be presented before we rose for the Whitsun Recess. Twenty-four hours later the Secretary of State has told us that this will now come after the Recess. We have become used in the past few weeks to some pretty odd antics by the right hon. Gentleman, but to turn upside down in the course of 24 hours the timing of an important Bill of this sort seems the most curious of all.
The Opposition have tabled the Motion of censure partly to express our condemnation of what seems to many in the House and outside to be a pretty disreputable episode, and partly to give right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends, a chance to probe the Government's intentions, and the Government a chance to explain what they were up to. In part we have succeeded on the second object, and I shall proceed mainly with the first.
I should like to say one thing in supplementation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said about the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security being put up to defend this case at the end of the debate. The principal object of our attack is the Chancellor, for it was he who in his Budget Statement sparked all this off. Although there will be many questions of a social security nature that the Minister may wish to answer, our accusation is against the Chancellor because of the effect all this will have on his Budget judgment, of which he made no mention, and the part it will play in the Budget strategy in the current year. Why is no

Treasury Minister answering the debate? We know that the Treasury Ministers have serious preoccupations with the International Monetary Fund and others, but they must realise what is at stake is the credibility of the Government's economic policy. Is not a single Treasury Minister prepared to defend the Chancellor? Where are they?
It is bad enough that the nation should suffer the serious errors of judgment which led to an even more strict supervision by the I.M.F., but it is worse still that the Chancellor should not face up to the consequences and ensure that at least a Treasury Minister is here to defend and explain what he has been doing. There is a great deal of explaining to do.
I return to the basic question: why was the statement of the benefits included in the Budget Statement? It is abundantly clear that no one—not even the Secretary of State—then knew what the contributions would have to be, and how they would be paid. The Government were not ready to make an announcement about contributions, so why did they announce the details of the pension increases? The Chancellor gave no reason in his statement but simply introduced this with the words:
I am now able to announce that …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
It is the exception that such an announcement should be made in a Budget speech. It is true that my noble Friend Lord Butler did it in 1952. But why? It was because he was dealing with a package, of which pension increases were a part; consumer food subsidies were cut, taxation was reduced and welfare benefits to those at the lower end of the scale were increased. The present Home Secretary mentioned pensions in his Budget Statement in November, 1964, but he did it because he said this was the Government's top priority. I suppose that in those heady days we could forgive them that. Every other single pension increase has been announced outside the Budget. I shall not weary the House with all the details; I have the dates.
Perhaps more significant is that on every single occasion, including that when the Home Secretary announced a pension increase in the Budget, it always included full details of the contributions that


would have to be paid, often in the same sentence. Here only the benefits were announced in the Budget; yet they were totally irrelevant to the Chancellor's Budget message. They were no part of a general package of tax changes, though the Secretary of State tried to pretend that they were. I have searched the Budget statement for a link between the pensions and allowances he mentioned. It was not even part of any coherent strategy for the social services.
One is driven to the conclusion that the benefits were put in for no other reason than an attempt to sugar the pill that the nation was having to swallow. There can have been no other conceivable purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had three harsh Budgets. He could not face the mauling that he would receive at the hands of his party, and had to have a sweetener. Therefore, he put in the pension increases and brazened out the consequences, though I am willing to bet that there must have been times during his winding up speech in the Budget debate when he wished he had left it out.
This explanation is entirely consistent with the rest of the Chancellor's strategy. We have the business of the health charges. The Secretary of State said on the radio the other day of the statement about health charges:
This is a statement which we've had for a very long time. I had hoped to see it in the Budget speech.
But, of course, he was not allowed to have it in the Budget speech. The Budget was to be Roy's day; nothing was to be allowed to tarnish the glitter and glory surrounding the Chancellor's big day of the year. Nothing was to muffle the big cheers as he sat down at the end of his speech. Therefore, we had charges out and pension benefits in. It is a squalid, disreputable story of which the Chancellor and all who participated and connived in it should be deeply ashamed.
It is not merely that they are seeking to conceal from the people the true cost of the Budget announcements, though that is bad enough. Far more serious is the fact that they are putting at risk any remaining confidence our creditors overseas may have in our financial integrity as a nation. Are we to believe that the I.M.F. and its party under Mr. Richard Goode had nothing whatever

to say about this when they were here at the time of the Budget? How does it look to our creditors and the cold and unsympathetic eyes of those to whom this spendthrift Government have put Britain deeper and deeper into pawn when they see the Chancellor even now, after devaluation, after the trade figures and after the worst year we have had for decades, still trying to pretend that welfare benefits can be enjoyed without being paid for?
Hon. Members opposite who squeal and kick when our creditors seek to impose conditions before granting us further indulgence should ask themselves: Do episodes like this establish confidence in the Government's credit overseas? Do episodes like this enhance the Government's reputation for financial responsibility? Or do they not further undermine faith in the determination of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to put their affairs in order, to behave responsibly, and to live within the nation's means?
It is not merely a question of appearances, for the whole Budget strategy is affected. Perhaps it was more than a Freudian slip when the announcer on the 8.30 news this morning called it the "Budget's tragedy", though he corrected himself. The Chancellor said nothing about this aspect in his Budget statement. The Secretary of State said nothing about the effect on the Budget strategy this evening, and I have little confidence that the Minister of State is capable of throwing any light on this aspect of the matter.
Yet, always, improvements in social security benefits increase the burden on the Exchequer, always they increase the burden on employers and put up costs, always they take money from savers and put it into the hands of spenders. Was none of this of any account in the Chancellor's Budget strategy? I remind the House that 70 per cent. of the increases which he announced have to be borne by industry, in S.E.T. and corporation tax. This stamp increase of an unknown amount—we still do not know how much it will be; it could be £200 million—is likely to land on industry. Is that not relevant to the Budget intentions? It is a further charge on companies' liquidity and it is bound to have an effect on investment.
What about the effect on the individual firm which has to make up its estimates for the future and, perhaps, for tenders? I quote here from a letter from a firm of builders in my constituency:
We have another problem in our industry regarding the unknown increase in the National Insurance contributions. A lot of work is carried out on what we call in the industry 'fixed price tenders', and we are expected to include in our estimates for increases such as this, but it appears that information will not be available until our Prime Minister decides. Just another problem that our present Government presents to industry.
Did the Chancellor give a moment's thought to that, or would he have cared a twopenny damn even if he had when his own vanity was at stake? The truth is that we have been treated to a "Dance of the Seven Veils" which would have put Salome to shame. The Government have tantalised the House with a striptease performance which would have been entertaining were it not about a deadly serious matter at a desperate time in our national fortunes.
Look at what has happened. At first, the total amount was entirely unknown—£250 million plus "a substantial extra provision". Today, we have been told that the total is £430 million, and even that includes nothing for war pensions and nothing for increases in supplementary benefits. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State wishes to correct that, he will have his opportunity. But the contributions are not £250 million. They will have to be £360 million, that is, £1 million a day extra in National Insurance contributions. It is a shattering figure.
At first, we had only the vaguest idea of how it would be split. The Chancellor said that it would be done fairly. Under pressure, he conceded, somewhat reluctantly,
I can assure the House that there is no question of employers being made to pay more than their normal share of the contribution …
What is the normal share for the employer?—the same as when the increase of 10s. was made last time? Of course not. It will be a great deal more. How on earth can firms budget when the uncertainties are as great as that?
Under further pressure, the Chancellor added:

… we have to work out the details how, in the transition to an earnings-related pension scheme, this can most fairly be placed on different individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 154–7.]
Today, that was elaborated by the Secretary of State. He tried to blind us with jargon. I must say that tax jargon is pretty awful, but social security jargon is just frightful. We heard of "dynamising the bricks". But what did emerge is that employees' contributions will be graded by income.
But there is to be no real difference to the benefits. There is a vague indication that a small slice of the pensions of those who are contracted in—the graduated bit of the pensions of those contracted in—may be kept in line with the cost of living; but there is to be nothing whatever for the millions who are contracted out. Graduated contributions and flat-rate benefits—and no wonder the Chancellor was not too worried when he had to leave that out of his Budget, for it is indistinguishable from a tax; the Chancellor has boasted that for two successive Budgets he has not put up the rates of direct taxation, and we are back again with his devious behaviour.
Amidst all the elegance of language, all the lucidity of expression, the House now realises that there lies revealed another shabby Socialist trick—pensions are put up and the cost is left to be announced. The Secretary of State has been the Chancellor's fall guy. But is not the real victim of this miserable story the wellbeing of the nation?
In supporting this Motion in the Lobby tonight, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not only be condemning the irresponsibility of an act of crass stupidity, but will be condemning the Government as utterly unfit to remain in office.

9.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It is clear that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) must have prepared that speech several days ago. It bore no relation to the debate. Without any disrespect to my hon. Friends or to hon. Members opposite who have spoken, this censure debate ended when my right hon. Friend replied to the noble Lord. My right hon. Friend frankly gave answers to the


questions put to him without any attempt to conceal.
I say straight away that the accusations against the Chancellor of the Exchequer by hon. Members opposite were totally unjustified. He made no attempt whatever to conceal the facts and he said with clarity that substantial amounts would have to be raised in addition to the sums needed in order to pay for the increased benefits. In case I should miss saying so later, let me make it clear that we are talking about retirement pensions, sickness, unemployment and other benefits, about industrial injuries benefits, war pensions and supplementary benefits, and let there be no mistake about that.
There was some talk of the deceit of the Chancellor, of his attempting to hide the burden, of squalid tricks and so on. It is clear that he made no attempt to conceal and he did not in fact conceal. During the course of the debate, I have been trying to work out what the Opposition's case was. What are they complaining about? For one thing, they seem to be worried whether the Bill will be presented to the House before or after Whitsun. I do not see what difference it makes, but the Opposition will not be allowed to push us into bringing the Bill forward before we have completed our consultations.

Lord Balniel: It has been announced today that the increased tax and contributions will amount to £430 million. Every newspaper I read this morning reported that the Secretary of State for Social Services had informed the Parliamentary Labour Party that the Bill would be published before the Whitsun Recess. It is now announced that it will not now come out until after the Whitsun Recess. Why has there been this change of plan within the last 12 hours?

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend made clear why he had decided that it would be better, because of the important issues which he had outlined and which some hon. Members seem not to understand, to have further time to consult others. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite look back through their record they will see that on many occasions they have brought forward uprating Bills at times very much closer to the date when the increases came into effect.
I have tried to understand what the Opposition are saying. They claim that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should perhaps have delayed making an announcement until the whole package was tied up. Why should he have done so? Surely it was important that retirement pensioners and others should know that they would get increases in the autumn to protect them against rises in prices. It was important that the Chancellor should say that. There would have been a great deal of consternation and misunderstanding had he not done so.

Mr. Dean: rose——

Mr. Ennals: I will not give way. I have already given way.

Mr. Dean: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) must keep his seat.

Mr. Ennals: The noble Lord said—[HON. MEMBERS "You cannot take it."] I have already given way to the noble Lord, and I was given very little time in which to reply.
The noble Lord talked about the Labour Party's record in pension increases. The standard rate of benefit is £4 10s. 0d. for a single person and £7 6s. 0d. for a married couple. Those rates were introduced in October, 1967. They are one-third higher than the corresponding rates when we took office in 1964. Even after taking into account the changes in the cost of living between mid-October, 1964, and mid-October, 1967, they provided an increase in real value of 20·2 per cent. for the single person and 20·7 per cent. for a married couple compared with the October, 1964, rate. When the increase is introduced in the autumn this year the pension rates will again return to 20 per cent. in real terms above the figure in existence when we took office.
Hon. Members have criticised the administration of the National Insurance Fund. Their accusations were empty. They know from their own experience that trends can never be forecast with total accuracy. This applies to the increase in the number of old people. It is interesting to note that in 1948 retired


people were 20·4 per cent. of the population, in 1967 25·2 per cent. and in 1970 will be 26·4 per cent. The number of old people in our society is constantly increasing, of which we have good reason to be proud because it is largely due to the benefits of the Welfare State. It is not possible to be certain about either the number of old people there will be to receive pensions or, for example, the level of sickness benefit during a particular year.
I have been waiting to hear during the debate what the Conservatives would do. At no time have they indicated what their line would be. As far as I can see, their minds are a total blank, except that of the noble Lord, whose mind seems to be cluttered. What would they do? Would they postpone the increases for another year, as they did when they were in power, at the expense of the old people and others entitled to benefit? Would they have brought in a smaller increase? Would they, as the hon. Member for—I have forgotten his constituency for the moment—

Mr. Dean: Somerset, North.

Mr. Ennals: Exactly right. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We enjoyed that. But let us get back to the debate.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I simply want the Minister to answer the question about unemployment trends. We were promised an answer.

Mr. Ennals: They are based on current trends.
When we had that happy laughter across the Chamber I was laughing to myself because when the hon. Member made his speech, at one moment he said that we would have to call forth too much in contributions and the next moment he was saying that we would not be raising enough. That is typical Conservative policy; you put your money and you take your choice. There is no need to take a position; every variation is given.
I found it difficult to understand what are the intentions of the Conservative Government—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear both sides.

Mr. Ennals: That was very great laughter, but I wonder what would have

been the reaction of those who will benefit from this pension increase had they been listening to the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite at that moment. They would, perhaps, like to have known, even if the House is to be denied that right, what Conservative policies are on these questions.
If the party opposite believe that there needs to be an increase in benefits and, therefore, an increase in contributions, and if they believe that the National Insurance Fund should be put into balance, as I am sure they do, how would they raise the contributions? Would they have done as they always did in the past and put it entirely on the flat rate? Would they have seen that this would be a very heavy burden on the low-paid workers and would they not agree—I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree—that it was exactly the right policy to determine that this burden should be spread: that those who earn least should pay least and those who earn more should pay more? This, of course, is the principle of the new scheme which we will be introducing to the House.
I very much share the point of view expressed by the spokesman from the Liberal benches, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who said that he did not like the necessity of constantly coming to the House to get an Act of Parliament to increase pensions. Neither do we. That is what we have written into our new scheme.
Not only will we in future have a scheme which will be earnings related in contributions and earnings related in benefits, but there will be a guarantee for existing pensioners that they will not have to wait the three years or more which they had to do in the days of the Conservative Party but that automatically, every two years, they can be assured that their standards will rise.
The Opposition are simply playing politics with pensions, as they are seeking to do with every issue on which they can lay their hands. We are determined, as we always have been, to put at its proper place the welfare of those who are in sickness or unemployment or are old. We are convinced that it is our responsibility as a society to protect those who are in need and that this must be borne by those who are in employment. Those


who are fit must be responsible for those who are in distress. I have no doubt that the Motion will be defeated.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 273.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Horden, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.




Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Donnelly, Desmond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Waddington, David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. W'lliam


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, A. W.


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wylie, N. R.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Archer, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Baxter, William
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Millan, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur

Morris, John (Aberavon)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boston, Terence
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Albert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Boyden, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Brooks, Edwin
Henig, Stanley
Norwood, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horner, John
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John
Park, Trevor


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rodgers, Williams (Stockton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, John (Reading)
Roebuck, Roy



Lestor, Miss Joan
Rogers George (Kensington, N.)


Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


English, Michael
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ryan, John


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)



Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George







Thornton, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tomney, Frank
Whitaker, Ben
Winnick, David


Urwin, T. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wallace, George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Watkins, David (Consett)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Neil McBride.


Weitzman, David

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ordered,


That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Immigration Appeals Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Grey.]

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL

Clause 7

REVIEW BY TRIBUNAL OF DETERMINATION OF ADJUDICATION

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 22, after "but" insert: "(a)".

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient I think to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 2, in page 5, line 24, leave out "(a)", and 3, in page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
and
(b) if leave to appeal under this section is by virtue of the rules required in a case where the adjudicator has dismissed an appeal under the said section 2(1)(a) the authority having power under the rules to grant leave shall grant it if satisfied that the person who was the appellant before the adjudicator held an entry certificate at the time of the refusal which was the subject of the appeal.

Mr. Rees: We are sorry that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is unwell. We were expecting him to be dealing with this matter.
The first two Amendments are paving Amendments for No. 3. The purpose of that one is to ensure that a holder of an entry certificate is not necessarily entitled to appeal to the Tribunal without leave when there is a dispute over the validity of the entry certificate. In its present form, the Clause provides that the holder is entitled to appeal without leave. But there could be a dispute as to whether the Commonwealth citizen concerned was, in fact, the holder of an entry certificate. The immigration service might allege that the certificate on which he relied was no longer valid, had been issued to someone else or was a forgery.
In such a dispute, it would be uncertain whether or not the Commonwealth citizen needed to obtain leave to appeal. If he did not apply to the adjudicator for leave, it would also be uncertain whether he could be removed from the country under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 before his

case came before the Tribunal.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a background of many debates.

Mr. Rees: To avoid this uncertainty, the Amendments alter Clause 7(2) so that the Commonwealth citizen who claims to hold an entry certificate may, nevertheless, be required to obtain leave to appeal but the adjudicator or Tribunal will be bound to grant leave if satisfied that he holds an entry certificate.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 42, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We are to discuss at the same time, I understand, Lords Amendments No. 5, in page 7, line 6, after "under" insert "subsection (1) of", and No. 6, in page 7, line 6, at end insert:
( ) If—

(a) in the case of an appeal which is dealt with in accordance with directions given under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State certifies that the disclosure to the appellant of any matters relevant to the case would be contrary to the interests of national security; or
(b) in the case of any appeal under this Part of this Act in which it is alleged that a passport, entry certificate or employment voucher (or any part thereof or entry therein) on which a party relies is a forgery, the adjudicator or Tribunal hearing the appeal determines that the disclosure to that party of any matters relating to the method of detection would be contrary to the public interest,

those matters shall be presented to the adjudicator or Tribunal without being disclosed as aforesaid; and for the purposes of this subsection any part of the proceedings may take place in the absence of the appellant or that party, as the case may be, and of his representatives.

Mr. Rees: The first two Amendments pave the way for the third, which is the one of substance. The first deletes the


existing subsection (2) of Clause 9, the second makes a consequential change in the wording of the present subsection (3), which will become subsection (2). The third Amendment adds a new subsection (3) which deals with the circumstances in which the appellate authorities may receive evidence in the absence of the appellant and his representatives.
As to security cases, which are dealt with under subsection (1) by a special panel of members of the Tribunal, and which we have discussed at length on earlier stages, paragraph (a) of the new subsection has the same effect as the present subsection (2). If the Secretary of State certifies that the disclosure to the appellant of any evidence would be contrary to the interests of national security, that evidence must be presented in the absence of the appellant and his representatives. But the new subsection (3) goes beyond the existing subsection (2) in that paragraph (b) deals with cases in which it is alleged that a passport, entry certificate or employment voucher has been falsified.
In such a case, it is proposed that, if the appellate authority decide that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose to the party relying on the document in question the method by which the alleged forgery was detected, evidence of this method has to be given in the absence of the appellant and his representatives.
Hon. Members may ask why it should be in the public interest to conceal from the appellant the method by which it is alleged that a forgery had been detected, which may be an essential element against him. The simple reason is that the provision of forged documents for would-be immigrants is a highly organised trade in some Commonwealth countries, and the immigration service's success in combating the forgers' efforts depends on the forgers being kept in ignorance of defects in their productions.
If all this information had to be specified in the presence of appellants, the information would be likely to be passed back to the organisers of the trade, and it would not be long before the forgers improved their methods. It would not be sufficient to exclude the Press and public from the hearing, since the appellant might be an agent of the immigration racketeers.
In some instances the detection of a false document or of a forged entry in a genuine document is based on the absence of certain safeguards or recognition signals that have deliberately been incorporated into the design of the authentic version. If the nature of these safeguards had to be disclosed, they would be valueless. There are various ways which the immigration service has of detecting forgeries.
The Amendment was suggested to us by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), on Second Reading, when he dealt with this matter. At that stage, I undertook to consider the issue. There is some reluctance on our part in putting forward this proposal, for the obvious reason that not to provide access to the hearing of evidence in this way, especially to the lawyers, may give rise to certain objections. But we see no other way of dealing with the matter. It is the only way of preventing the appeals system from being turned to the advantage of the racketeers.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said and I assure him that we see the need for this change. Indeed, we welcome it.
Those of us who have seen the work at the ports know what the right hon. Gentleman said about the methods which must be employed against forgeries which, in the end, redound greatly against the interests of the immigrants. We appreciate that these methods must be employed and it would be ludicrous if the methods which immigration officers must use to detect forgeries were spelt out in every appeal which is heard at the ports.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's reluctance to go as far as this proposal goes in excluding the appellant from what is, in effect, his own appeal. I agree that there is no way round this problem. If anybody was present at such a hearing who was in a position to repeat what he heard, the methods used by immigration officers to detect forgeries would no longer be of use to them and would not do what they are designed to do, namely, to act as a safeguard against future forgeries.
We therefore accept the proposal and we shall note with interest how, in the long term, it works out in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause A

POWER TO REFUSE ADMISSION TO WIVES AND CHILDREN UNDER 16 IF THEY DO NOT HOLD ENTRY CERTIFICATES

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 13, line 16, at end insert new Clause "A"—

"A.—(1) In subsection (2)(b) of section 2 of the Act of 1962 (under which a woman may not be refused admission into the United Kingdom if she satisfies an immigration officer as to the matters there specified) after the words 'satisfies an immigration officer' there shall be inserted the words 'that she holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this paragraph and'.
(2) In subsection (2A) of the said section 2 (under which a person under the age of 16 may not be refused admission into the United Kingdom if he satisfies an immigration officer as to the matters there specified) after the words 'satisfies an immigration officer' there shall be inserted the words 'that he holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this subsection and'.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for securing that the persons having authority to grant entry certificates on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom shall, on due application, grant such a certificate for the purposes of the said subsection (2)(b) or (2A) on being satisfied that, apart from the foregoing provisions of this section, the applicant would be entitled to admission into the United Kingdom under the said subsection (2)(b) or (2A) or would be so entitled if the applicant's husband, parent or parents were admitted with the applicant."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Government have decided to make the possession of an entry certificate obligatory for settlement by Commonwealth dependants. I will come to the question of aliens later. Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, lays it down that admission may not be refused to the wife of a Commonwealth citizen who is already resident in the United Kingdom, or who accompanies her and is on that occasion admitted, unless she is the subject of a deportation order; nor may admission be refused to

children under 16 whose parents are here or who are admitted with them.
The effect of the Amendment will be that these rights of entry will remain exercisable provided that the passenger has obtained an entry certificate for the purpose from the appropriate British representative overseas; but that admission may be refused if he has not. The change is, in substance, important though purely administrative. I wish to make it clear that it is not the intention of the Amendment—nor could it be by virtue of the rights involved—to lead to a reduction in the number of dependants coming in.
This is a method of improving the machinery of entrance for dependants. It is important that all people coming to Britain should obtain entry certificates. The point that has moved my right hon. Friend concerns the problems that arise principally at London Airport of dependants of Commonwealth citizens who travel perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 miles across the world and come here without good documentation.
Subsection (3) is designed to ensure that everybody entitled to a certificate receives one, and I shall return to this issue later. Entry certificates will also be obligatory for dependent relatives who have no statutory right of admission for example, children over 16 or aged parents.
A separate Amendment to Clause 22(5) provides for the new Clause to come into operation as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent, which we expect to be tomorrow. Although this Amendment does not restrict the right of entry, already this week London Airport has had a larger number of people arriving without proper documentation and this has stretched the immigration service to the limit. This is, however, only a minor reason for the timing of the measure. There are a number of other reasons; for example, the cases in recent weeks, which have been unfortunate, of people arriving, again without proper documentation.
It has seemed to my right hon. Friend that when the Bill becomes law and is implemented—we hope that this will be by the end of this year or early next year—there may be certain administrative difficulties—"swamping" is too strong a word—unless something of this sort is done. We also thought that perhaps the


Select Committee might have considered this matter. However, in its wisdom, it did not; and we therefore felt that this was the time to deal with the matter.
We accept that the Wilson Committee, while giving a great deal of support to the need for entry certificates, and the need to deal with them voluntarily, did not recommend that this should be done, but experience since that Committee sat of the large number of people coming in without entry certificates has convinced us that something ought to be done.
We have failed to persuade sufficient of those coming for settlement to obtain entry certificates. From the West Indies, there is no problem, nor is there from West Africa and Cyprus. But the great majority of dependants from India and Pakistan make no use of the entry certificate procedure. There is no doubt that people with entry certificates almost walk through our immigration control points, because the documentation has already been attended to.
During 1968, more than 48,000 Commonwealth citizens were admitted as dependants coming for settlement; over 30,000 from India and Pakistan. The majority come to London Airport, and it is here that difficult problems have arisen. The least suitable place for investigation regarding documentation, or questioning simple people coming from almost another world, is a great international airport, with all its bustle.
This problem would not be solved by the introduction of the appeals system provided for in Part I of the Bill, but the Government intend that there shall be an extra-statutory appeals system for such dependants before Part I is implemented, and that this part of the system will be introduced immediately in advance of the Measure itself.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that this provision will come in immediately on the Bill getting the Royal Assent, which he hopes will be tomorrow. He also said that the very announcement of this new Clause had brought in a flood of additional people during the last few days. What happens to those people who arrive tomorrow and the day after who do not have an entry certificate? My question is not asked critically.

Mr. Rees: All I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that it is to be implemented tomorrow, but that because of the overlapping period it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to be dogmatic. We shall have to take into account those who started their movement in advance of this part of the Bill coming into force.
It is not at present considered necessary to increase the number of offices in India and Pakistan from which entry certificates may be obtained. Incidentally, the entry certificate takes the form of a stamp in the passport. There are four places in India and four in Pakistan where certificates may be obtained.
It may be suggested that the Government should open more entry certificate offices overseas nearer to some of the main areas of emigration, but paragraph 72 of the Wilson Report expressed the view that the offices were conveniently located. We think that the first priority must be to reinforce the eight existing offices in India and Pakistan, and that is where the additional staff will initially be located. Subsequently, it will be for the High Commissioner to decide how best to allocate the resources at his disposal. We have seen, and shall see, that the High Commissioners are made aware of the various suggestions that are being made.
It is certainly not the case that we have decided at this stage not to make facilities available in additional places for the issue of entry certificates, but there are practical difficulties. It is not just a question of sending a few people up country, or wherever it may be. We must keep an open mind on the subject, and continue to look at it. I am advised that most applicants at present seem to be quite content to go to the main centres to apply for passports, and they can apply for entry certificates at the same time. The offices are encouraging applicants to make the first approach by post.
It is not to be expected that Commonwealth Governments will positively welcome a Measure which for certain of their citizens changes the entry certificate from an optional facility, but the Government firmly believe that it is in the best interests of Commonwealth immigrants of all nationalities, and they trust that the provision will be seen in this light.
I shall say a few words about arrangements for appeal, because I understand that this is an aspect which is exercising the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. When the statutory appeals system is in force, a Commonwealth citizen who is refused an entry certificate will be able to appeal to an adjudicator in this country and, with leave, to the tribunal; and one who arrives with an entry certificate but is refused admission will be able to appeal to an adjudicator and, as of right, to the tribunal.
10.30 p.m.
As I have explained, it is not practicable to bring Part I into force immediately. I have said that we shall, however, have an extra-statutory appeals system at once. The appeals will be decided by one of a number of independent lawyers to be nominated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend undertakes to abide by the lawyer's decision. Appeals against refusal to grant an entry certificate will be dealt with in this country in accordance with the procedure recommended by the Wilson Committee and in conformity with the extra-statutory arrangements already made for dealing with such appeals for United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa.
If the appellant so requests, his sponsor in this country or a lawyer or voluntary organisation acting on his behalf will be able to present the case orally to the lawyer dealing with the appeal. The interim arrangements, as have said, will be based on the Wilson Committee's recommendations in paragraphs 125 and 187.
Upon deciding to refuse an entry certificate, which is the point which is exercising some people's minds, the entry certificate officer will hand the applicant, or send him by post, a notice stating briefly the reasons for the decision and informing him of the arrangements for appeal. The information supplied about rights of appeal will explain that an appellant can, if he wishes, be represented at the hearing of his appeal by a relative or friend in this country or by a voluntary organisation here. I will say something about that in a moment.
All applicants for entry certificates as dependants will, unless the application is

completely baseless, have sponsoring relatives in the United Kingdom. Unsuccessful applicants will be informed of the facilities for advice and assistance available from voluntary organisations, both in their own countries and for the purpose of appeal in the United Kingdom. An appellant will be able to indicate on the notice of appeal whether he wishes to nominate anyone to represent him in this country.
On receiving a notice of appeal the entry certificate officer will transmit it with a report on the case, accompanied by any relevant documentary evidence, to the Home Office, where the case will be assigned to one of the lawyers whom the Lord Chancellor will nominate to deal with the appeals. Any person or organisation whom the appellant has named to represent him will be sent copies of the entry certificate officer's report and informed of the date and place of the hearing. The decision will be transmitted to the appellant through the Home Office and the entry certificate officer and will also be made known to his representatives.
We have been discussing with a number of voluntary bodies the part they can play in the representation of appellants under these arrangements, both in the long term—the Ports Welfare Advisory Committee, based on the Clarke Report—and in the short run. The basis of discussion is the Clarke Report. There still is a job to do. There will be less, as a result of this Amendment, to do in this country. Now we are concerned with work in the country of origin. Appeals will be in this country. We will spread the lawyers near to the centres of immigration, not just in the London area.
We want to help the organisations, principally the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and International Social Service, to help in the country of origin. We have invited them to let us have more details of their plans, with an estimate of costs. This estimate we have now received, and we shall consider, in consultation with the Treasury, what measure of financial assistance we can provide so as to ensure that immigrants are fully aware of and able to exercise their rights under the new procedure.
We do not under-estimate the practical difficulties of introducing this kind of appeal system, but we should not, in considering how to overcome them, lose sight of the painful aspects of the system of immigration control that it is to replace.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend has been talking about the Ports Welfare Advisory Committee. Is it the position, since the meeting at the Home Office last week, that this proposal is still to be implemented, or is there a breakdown in negotiations between the committees and organisations which were to sponsor the Committee?

Mr. Rees: There has been no breakdown. There are two aspects. In the long term, there is the Port Welfare and Advisory Committee, based on the Clarke recommendations. The N.C.C.L. has withdrawn its support from this, but the other organisations have not. In the long run we want to set up a ports advisory and welfare service, but it is not to be implemented until the end of this year or the beginning of next.
The immediate need is through the J.C.W.I. and I.S.S. to deal with the problem that will arise straight away. This is exercising the mind of my right hon. Friend. We want to be as helpful as we can, because it is necessary that we do something in the country of origin.

Mr. John Lee: I realise that my hon. Friend wants to be as informal as possible, but which are the voluntary organisations that will have locus standi in this matter?

Mr. Rees: I have here a list of all the organisations that played their part in the Clarke Report. Perhaps I could let my hon. Friend know later.
As a result of what happened last week, the two bodies that will principally play a part in the country of origin will be the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants and International Social Services. They are only two of the bodies interested in the more long-term Ports Advisory and Welfare Service. There is also the Kent Council of Social Service and others. I will see that my hon. Friend receives a copy of the Clarke Working Party's Report with its recommendations.
An entry certificate holder appealing against refusal of admission will be able to attend the hearing of his appeal and not be removed from the United Kingdom until the appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed. A corresponding change in the law will not be required for alien dependants, because, unlike Commonwealth dependants, they have no legal rights of entry. There is an essential difference. Two changes in administrative practice will be made to bring the admission of alien dependants into line with what is now proposed for Commonwealth dependants, so far as this is consistent with agreements for visa abolition.
Admission of alien dependants for settlement is on a much more modest scale than admission of Commonwealth dependants, and is limited to wives, children and other relatives of aliens who have themselves already been accepted as residents here, normally as a result of having spent at least four years in approved employment. In such circumstances dependants are admitted for settlement if the head of the family is able and willing to support and accommodate his dependants without recourse to public funds.
On this basis, about 1,350 are admitted for settlement each year, of whom about 1,000 are wives and children. The balance are dependent parents or other relatives. Dependants of aliens who are visa nationals are required to obtain visas before coming here for settlement, so this is already in line with what is proposed for Commonwealth citizens.
Resident aliens who are nationals of countries with which we have entered into arrangements for visa abolition often obtain Home Office approval before bringing their dependants here. In future, they will be advised to obtain this advance approval. Where it is not obtained the dependants will not be admitted for settlement. If they appear ineligible for settlement the immigration officer will not allow them to land. But if they appear eligible they may be allowed to enter for a short period and advised to apply to the Home Office for permission to settle.
Under the Bill, arrangements for appeal in this country have already been approved for people who have been refused entry certificates. This is already the procedure we have agreed to. Now


we are asking that all dependants should obtain entry certificates. My right hon. Friend regards this change as extremely important. It has become clear to us in recent months that something like this would have to be done. I do not think that it is something that divides the House politically. There is no fundamental difference between us. What we all wish to see is that this new change is implemented in the best possible way and that those who have a proper legal right of entry will be able to obtain this in the country of origin.
That is an administrative improvement and I am sure that at London Airport, where I have been particularly moved by this problem, we shall have a far more civilised method of entry, especially for Commonwealth citizens.

Miss Joan Lestor: The issuing of entry certificates and the appeals machinery in the country of origin is obviously crucial if this system is to be seen to be fair. Has my hon. Friend any plans if this goes on for having an inspectorate, or officials, or hon. Members, members of the Select Committee, go to see how the system is actually working in the countries of origin?

Mr. Rees: At the official level this is something which we will look at extremely closely in the next few months, because it is crucial to the working of the Bill.
It is not for me in any way to suggest what members of the Select Committee might do, but if they were to put their minds to this problem, it might seem appropriate for them to look at the difference between the arrangements in the West Indies, and, for example, in Pakistan and India, and also in Cyprus and Malta. The problem is dealt with differently in each. No problem has arisen in the West Indies, for example. It may be appropriate for the Select Committee to look at this, but it is not for me to do aught but put the suggestion on record.

Mr. Deedes: It may seem gracious of those of us who have pressed for this system of entry certificates to acknowledge what the hon. Member has said and to welcome this course of action and

not be captious about it. I want to be not captious, but cautious.
Personally, I have no criticism of the way in which this is being done, although it has been subject to criticism elsewhere. This is a big item to inject into a relatively modest Bill at this stage, but I accept the hon. Member's hint that there were compelling reasons for acting swifty, as we learned early in 1968, and perhaps this is the best way of going about it.
As I surmised, and as the hon. Member confirmed, this is not a sudden change of attitude by the Government, but, as the hon. Member put it, something which has grown on them in recent months as being the sort of thing that would have to be done. The policy having been determined some months ago, the opportunity to act quickly has come.
I am not quarrelling with that approach, but questioning whether the rush which, I know, the hon. Member had in mind unless this were done in a certain way would, in fact, have materialised. I do not dwell on that, but I question whether, in those circumstances, the rush would have materialised to the extent feared.
Nor, if this system works properly, do I think it humbug to stress that the entry certificate system is emphatically not restrictive but calculated to be far more humane than the methods which some of us have seen working at the ports. Certainly, my own findings from a view of the ports early this year were that the strain on the immigrants and on the immigration officers had become intolerable under the present system. This was inevitably reflected in the indignities on the individuals whose credentials were doubtful and had to be examined.
To effect a shift in the burden of proof from the ports, which are the worst possible places for protracted examination, it had become essential to shift the administration to the country of origin. I imagine that the additional burden that the appeals system will impose on the immigration staff had made some relief of this kind necessary. Nevertheless, as hon. Members opposite have stressed at times when they have wished to resist pressure for the entry certificate system, it will undoubtedly impose certain burdens


on our administration overseas. When he made the announcement, the Home Secretary said that he was satisfied that the staff would be adequate.
The hon. Member has just referred to the number of offices which he things it will or will not be necessary to open. Can he give us any quantities? What additional staff will be required? There will obviously be a considerable demand on the High Commission staff already dealing with this sort of thing. This is not just an administrative quibble. The entry certificate has come to be regarded, rightly, as an additional safeguard, proof of the bona fides of the person entering, and on the evidence of the ports, where many fewer of those without entry certificates have been refused entry than those with, that is a right supposition, but it will continue to be so regarded. Scrutiny, therefore, will be less severe and inquiries at the ports less protracted. That is the object of this. In other words, the entry certificate will be heavily relied upon.
10.45 p.m.
It is imperative that it remains reliable. That depends in part on the preliminary work in the countries of origin, particularly in countries or districts where details are hard to get, and a great deal of time may be occupied in doing that. Second, it will require a good deal more care in the department of which we spoke earlier, the department of forgery. It is no good blinking the fact that forgeries which have been unnecessary in the past in this sphere of the entry certificate will now become a factor. The entry certificate will join the passport and the port of embarkation stamp as a profitable forgery.
I am not imagining this. I will quote words which the Under-Secretary himself used in November, when stating the case against the entry certificates:
If bogus pieces of paper are being used to enter, there will be bogus entry certificates. If entry certificates cannot be checked at the ports because holders of such certificates would be allowed in, the number of bogus people entering would perhaps be greater."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 527.]
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not depart from that view which he held only a short time ago. But a moment ago, he said that those holding entry Certificates would, in effect, almost be

able to walk through. That is what we all expect. I trust that this matter of the right degree of scrutiny at the ports will receive careful attention. It would be wrong to neglect it.
What will be the scrutiny of the entry certificate or visa form in the passport? I take it that there will be safeguards against forgery of the entry certificate, and at both ends. Obviously, I am not pressing for details of this, contrary to the spirit of an earlier Amendment, but I hope that we shall not spare pains to prevent the entry certificate becoming an area of forgery.
The main injustice which will be done—if it is done—will be to the immigrants who are unjustly kept out while illicit immigrants get in. How long will applicants have to wait after putting in for an entry certificate? I realise that this may vary greatly according to the district where application is made, but what would be the longest period?
Finally, appeals. I have said that this is a very tenuous system. The refusal will lie with the officer of the High Commission in the country of origin, and the appeal will be by an adjudicator somewhere in this country, and between the two, a good deal of paper will have to pass. We have all had the experience of receiving letters from Australia rather more quickly than those posted internally in this country, so I do not rule out the possibility that this could be done, administratively, expeditiously and without undue delays.
Again, I stress that it will depend very much on staffing, at each end. It is not difficult to see how long delays could be involved. An exhausting bureaucratic system could be established in which nothing happened very quickly and in which the appeals system became a farce. That causes me to lay additional stress on the question of staffing. I hope that the Minister will say another word when he replies.
Generally, therefore, with those reservations I welcome this step. We acknowledge the difficulty that the Home Secretary has had concerning the timing of it and I for one, therefore, resist using the word "belated", but we dwell on the administrative obligations to which this will give rise.
If the Treasury is cheeseparing about this and the Home Office or the Foreign Office do not get the staff which they should have, our gains from all this will be very small. That will be the result. It is not too difficult to imagine that if this is skimped, we shall simply have added to the complexities of our system without reducing the injustices which this approach is designed to meet.

Mr. Brian Walden: I, unlike the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), have serious reservations about what the Government are doing. However, I understand the problem which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have set out. I know that there have been great strains upon our immigration officers at the ports, and especially at the airports.
I fully accept that the Government have changed their minds and are making this change only because they think that this will be a more just, humane and watertight system. I do not want to make a lengthy address setting out all the arguments that my right hon. and hon. Friends have heard many times before. Perhaps we can make the deal that they can take them as read. They know the sort of objections that people like myself have to the system.
I should like to make one comment and ask two questions. My comment is, in a way, similar to that of the right hon. Member for Ashford. I am worried, despite what my hon. Friend has said, about the number of places and the staff manning those places who are available on the Indian sub-continent for the issue of the entry certificates. I have real doubts about that.
It was well said by the right hon. Member for Ashford that we do not want the worst of all situations in which we add to the bureaucratic complexity without in any sense getting rid of the injustices or the hardships. Therefore, I am not sure that we have enough places. Constituents tell me stories about obtaining entry certificates or failing to obtain them. I do not by any means say that those stories are necessarily true in every detail, but the sub-continent is a big place. I am not sure that eight places at which certificates can be ob-

tained are enough and I am not sure that there is adequate staff for what will need to be done.
I reiterate the plea made by the right hon. Member for Ashford that we should not stint money on this. I add, parenthetically, that we are learning that immigration control, as many of us suspected, is exceedingly expensive and gets more and more expensive the more just and strict it is in enforcement.
Now, my questions. I understand—I am open to correction—that the lack of an entry certificate does not automatically mean that an immigrant will not get in. [Interruption.] This is what I want my hon. Friend to say. I understood that the lack of a certificate meant that an immigrant almost certainly would not get in, but that there is discretion. The way my hon. Friend spoke led me to think that there was discretion. This point has been put to me several times; I had assumed what is plainly the common view of the House. I am told there might be discretion and, if there is, I want to know what it is.
My second question relates to a point that is constantly put to me and I think I know the answer, but I would like to have it on the record. What discussions have taken place with the airlines? It would be wrong to suggest that the airlines should carry out administrative functions which properly rest with British Government representatives, but have there been discussions, and how far has it been possible to arrive at an arrangement? If it has not been possible to arrive at an arrangement, what are the reasons for this?
By limiting my remarks in this way, I am sure the reply from my right hon. Friend will not be less charitable on that account.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in welcoming the new Clause. The system of entry certificates is a sensible procedure. There is nothing more degrading and distressing than that people may come to this country in the belief that they are able to enter only to be turned away at the port of entry or at the airport. As has been said by the hon. Gentleman, a system of entry certificates is basically humane, rather than the reverse. The


system will facilitate the means of entry for those who are entitled to come here.
There are, however, one or two things that perturb me in the immediate position. The hon. Gentleman stated that the new Clause will come into effect with the Royal Assent, which he expects to be given tomorrow. I do not have the 1962 Act before me, but, according to the wording of the Clause, from that moment onwards, it will be necessary for anyone who is to enter this country as a dependant to satisfy the immigration officer—
that she holds a current entry certificate granted for the purposes of this paragraph …
I am not being critical, but merely asking for information. This appears to be a mandatory requirement, without discretion. If this is so, what will happen to the flood of people on their way here, who were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, when the Bill is given the Royal Assent? This applies not only to the people who arrive tomorrow or the day after, but to those who are on their way by sea, believing that they are entitled to enter, and to those who have committed themselves to coming here within the next week or two, none of whom will have an entry certificate.
Will they be stopped? If so, since the entry certificate is to be granted in the country of origin, will they have to return to their country of origin to get the entry certificate? I am not being critical, but just mentioning the difficulties of immediate application.
My second point concerns appeals. There is something slightly naive in the idea that the entry certificate is to be obtained in the country of origin whereas the appeal is to a lawyer in this country, who is presumably to be announced by the time Royal Assent is given tomorrow, if the appeals system is to be put into immediate force.
Appreciating what the hon. Member said about the post—that it is quicker to get a letter from India than from Swiss Cottage—it is even more naive to tell that to a person who would have the right to appear in person before an appellate tribunal——

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The appeal applies to people who have their entry certificates refused before they get to this country;

in other words, it applies to the position under the Bill as originally drafted.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise; it was an unfair point. I was trying to follow what the hon. Member was saying. It would be strange to give a person the right to appeal and to provide that he would have to come to this country to be heard and would then have to return.
My other general point is that it seems that this provision has almost been brought about by a sudden emergency. We have heard of the need for urgent implementation of this provision. What is the reason for the urgency? Is it that there has been an increased flood of people with doubtful applications in the last few weeks or, as I suspect, that a greatly increased number of dependants has been coming in recently? I am not saying that this is wrong, but it should be borne in mind that once this provision is introduced it is a means by which we can phase the entry of dependants into this country.
When I talk about the urgency I merely ask—in view of the statements made and the criticisms of hon. Members opposite, not least the Front Bench opposite whenever we have talked about the phased entry of dependants—where is the difference? Are not the Government in fact introducing a system which will entitle them to phase the entry of dependants by the granting of entry certificates?
I am not saying that I criticise such an idea; I merely ask—when I hear that the need for this provision is urgent—whether the urgency arises from the greatly increased number of dependants coming here.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have a very big constituency interest in this matter. I have a large concentration of Indian people in my constituency and am constantly involved in questions concerning the anxiety and anguish that attends divided families. Nothing in what we have heard today suggests to me that this provision has anything to do with a deliberate attempt by the Home Secretary to prevent those who are legally entitled to come to join the breadwinners of their families from doing so.
I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations. The idea


that children, in particular, should be kept out of this country if they are dependent upon a breadwinner here, is repugnant. In my view, the sooner they are sent here to take advantage of our educational system and to train for a position in our society, the better.
Nevertheless, I must voice a few anxieties. I want to probe the matter from the point of view of technicalities. I do not know what an entry certificate looks like, or what it means in practical terms if appended to a passport—whether it is simply a rubber stamp on the passport. I join with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in expressing a sense of anxiety—since it adds a new dimension to the regulations concerning people arriving here, especially from India and the two States of Pakistan—that this provision should be exercised with scrupulous care.
It will be an additional piece of paper or information which will be crucial. I want to know, in practical terms, what it means for a wife or a child who hitherto could come in without such a certificate. I want too, to press the discretionary aspect of what we are writing into the law. I thought that I detected some measure of discretion on the part of the Home Secretary in the use of the word "may" somewhere along the line. It seems elementary that the Home Secretary should have this small amount of discretion. I support the general idea, having been involved in this.
It should be made clear to the public why it is necessary to take this step, that it is both in the interests of the indigenous population, and the incoming immigrants. Over a wide area of the world there is no proof of the date of birth. There have been struggles going on, at London Heathrow particularly, seeking to prove at one end of the family scale that the lad is not as old as he appears. As I have said, the man lands up in hospital, having his bones X-rayed. At the other end of the scale, there is the dependent relative over 65, and it is sometimes necessary to prove that he is older than he appears to be to the immigration officer.
This is a degrading, inhuman activity. Then, because we have not provided better accommodation, these people land up somewhere like Brixton Prison, while the tug-of-war goes on and, the M.P.

having put his nose into it, prolongs the agony. In the end, if no proof is available, these people have to be shipped back, half-way across the world. I accept the necessity for some far better arrangement, but I express this great anxiety about the total social consequences of the family being kept apart.

Mr. John Pardoe: Unlike most hon. Gentlemen who have spoken so far, I totally oppose the new Clause, unequivocally, and on grounds of principle. I find it extraordinary that this extreme point of principle should be introduced for discussion at this late hour, on a Thursday, when a large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have already left the House to go to their constituencies. There is a major point of principle at stake, and this is not the time to discuss it. Why has it been introduced so late in the Bill? I want to dwell on this because I have a feeling that there has been a strange undercurrent in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), as if they somehow knew something, but were not prepared to say.
Lord Stonham, in another place, introducing this new Clause, said that to make the change first known at a late stage in the Bill reduced to the minimum the risk of a rush to enter in advance of the alteration in the law. I want to know whether we have been fooled and whether the Government have intentionally delayed this until after the earlier stages in this House for the reasons spelled out in another place, and whether the Government were entirely straight with the House in the reasons that they gave.
Why have the Government changed their mind at all? It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to tell us that certain cases in the past few weeks have made it necessary to act in this way, or that persuasion has exercised itself on his mind. In November, 1968, he said quite clearly to the House that for administrative reasons it could not be done.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. I remember the occasion very well. My right hon. Friend meant, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will perceive, that it needed an Act of


Parliament because one was altering statutory rights. It was to that aspect that my right hon. Friend was then referring.

Mr. Pardoe: I do not read the passage like that, but I accept that it is one interpretation that could be put on those words.
But the Home Secretary produced another reason for saying that it could not be done. He said that it would discriminate against the Commonwealth citizen, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight indicates to me that anything has changed in that respect. Under the existing legislation, dependents of Commonwealth citizens who are already resident here or have the right to enter have a right of entry, but under the Bill that right will now depend on their having a certificate of entry issued in the country from which they come.
I come to the vitally important point that the word used tonight is precisely the same as that used by the noble Lord. The word used was "may". What does that mean? The noble Lord said that "admission may be refused" if the immigrant does not have a certificate of entry. What does the word "may" mean there? Does it mean that the immigration officers will be allowed to exercise discretion, or that in very special cases they will not be allowed to exercise discretion? Or what does it mean? It is right that we should ask for a very clear definition, because the wording will have a great effect on a very large number of individual cases.
Nor can I see the Government's reason for changing the whole recommendation of the Wilson Committee on this point. That Committee looked into this matter very carefully—far more carefully than most of us in this House have had an opportunity of doing. In paragraph 68 it spelt out the appalling situation which arises at ports of entry and airports. The Committee was well aware of these conditions, and stated:
… the entry certificate was introduced for the convenience of Commonwealth citizens; and it has obvious advantages for those who use it. When such a certificate is granted, the Commonwealth citizen who has properly obtained it has normally a virtual guarantee of admission. When it is refused, the Commonwealth citizen not only saves the cost of his fare but is relieved of the strain of waiting in a kind of no man's land for his fate to be

decided at the port. From the point of view of the Home Office, too, it is desirable to reduce as far as possible the number of difficult cases which first arise for decision at the port of entry.
The Committee was well aware of all the difficulties that arise by allowing immigrants to come here and then refusing them entry. In spite of that awareness, the Committee nevertheless turned down the entry certificate as being "out of the question"—its own words. Further in the Report, the Committee states:
After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to make the use of entry certificates compulsory.
I will not read out the reasons given, but I again emphasise that the Committee came to the conclusion that this step, which the Government have introduced here, and in another place slightly earlier, was out of the question.
11.15 p.m.
Shall we not be transferring the human misery that now occurs at our ports of entry to the areas surrounding British High Commission premises in the sub-Continent of India? It has been pointed out that, together, India and Pakistan form a large area. Those concerned will have to make their way to one of eight points of certificate issue. Their journey may not, for them, be as far as London Airport, but for many of them the journey to one of the issuing points may be just as difficult. Considering the conditions in that part of the world, some of these people would no doubt prefer to make a journey by sea than cross overland to one of these issuing points.

Mr. Rees: I have been studying the maps and the Wilson Report, including those parts of it from which the hon. Gentleman did not quote. Is he aware that the parts of India and Pakistan from which most immigrants come necessitate a journey overland, in any event, just as a journey overland would be required to travel to one of the High Commissioner's offices? Would he give an example, on the evidence in the Wilson Report, of the sort of journey he has in mind?

Mr. Pardoe: I am putting that question to the hon. Gentleman. Can he say what distances, on average, these people will have to travel to get to one of the


eight issuing points? How long will that journey take them?
The Amendment makes a complete change in the principle of the Bill. It is one thing to hear the appeals of people who are here and can attend the hearings, but it is another to hear the appeals of people who have been refused entry and are in far-away countries. Conducting appeals in this fashion, on paper, does not seem to square with anything that I could call the British sense of justice. I would not like any appeal of mine to be heard in that way.
This proposal will remove the appeals procedure from the gaze of the public eye in Britain. How will hon. Members and the voluntary organisations which are interested in these matters be able to act? Many of these organisations perform a valuable task in surveying the process by which entry certificates are granted or refused. These voluntary watchdogs will find it difficult and vastly more expensive to safeguard overseas the principles of justice which we have so far maintained here.
Without wishing to criticise the people who will carry out this task on our behalf in other countries, the process here is different. There is a degree of tolerance in Britain; it is perhaps not universal, but many people here maintain the tradition of bloody-mindedness when a principle of liberty is involved. That tradition is exercised towards people when they come here, but I fear that it will not be so exercised in other countries. The would-be immigrant will be tried in his absence and justice will not be seen to be done.
To set my mind at rest, will the Minister answer some important questions? Will our High Commissions be able to cope with the administrative problems involved in the great number of applications that will be made to them? The number is bound to be larger than at present, since the hon. Gentleman said that only one in five of would-be immigrants now apply in their countries of origin. Although cost is not a matter of principle, how much will this proposal cost? Will aliens also have to go through this process? He said, for instance, that it was not the same because they had no right of residence anyway, but I am not sure exactly what rights of

residence Commonwealth citizens have after recent legislation.

Mr. Rees: The Commonwealth citizen, when he comes here, comes in as a Commonwealth citizen. He goes on the voters' list; he cannot be removed. He does not have to report to the police. He is in a very privileged position compared with aliens. The alien coming into this country is not a citizen until he has applied to be naturalised. When there is a great deal of talk about equating the position of aliens with that of Commonwealth citizens, it all depends on which way the equation takes place. In this sense, Commonwealth citizens are privileged in comparison with aliens.

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further explanation, but I am not quite sure how that has changed since the time when his right hon. Friend said in November that it was one of his main objections to taking this step.
There is, too, a great need for a far better advisory service overseas. What do we know about the reasons why people in Pakistan and India do not get their certificates on a voluntary basis, whereas those in the West Indies do? Presumably it is at least partly because the advisory system in the West Indies is infinitely better. What have we done to improve the advisory service in Pakistan and India? What research have we carried out to find out why these people come here without voluntary certificates? As far as I can see, this advisory system will still be needed because even when this Bill has been passed there is still going to be the problem of ensuring that the certificate is a real one. The right hon. Member for Ashford raised the whole problem of forgeries. It is a very considerable problem, and I can foresee a vast scale of forgery going on—certainly in the early stages. If it becomes too widespread, the certificate will cease to mean anything and precisely the same operation will have to be gone through at the port of entry to scrutinise whether the certificate is a real certificate, just as we now scrutinise whether the dependant is a real dependant.
This is a bad Clause, and if it is passed it will make this a very bad Bill. The Government have to explain to us in some detail why they have, as I believe,


made fools of us by bringing it forward so late in the day.
The Government's record on immigration will, I think, be the thing of which members of the Parliamentary Labour Party will be most ashamed when they sojourn in the wilderness. Tonight will be a black day in their memories. No retreat is too rapid, no attitude too supine, for the Government before the prejudices which have swept this country in recent months. This House will, I suppose, pass this new Clause tonight, but I believe that it will disgrace itself in so doing.

Mr. Evan Luard: I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that this is an extremely important Amendment for two reasons. The first is that to a large extent it nullifies, for a large proportion of the immigrants with whom we are concerned, the provisions in the Bill as it originally stood.
But the Amendment is important for another reason. It reverses the recommendations of the Committee which the Government themselves set up to look into these very problems.
The Bill as a whole implemented these recommendations, and my right hon. Friend announced more than six months ago that it was his intention to implement the recommendations as a whole. In introducing this Clause he has reversed that decision, and decided to go against a major recommendation of the Committee.
I do not go along with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, however, in condemning that decision out of hand. I agree with a lot of what has been said by other speakers about the terrible miseries that are created at London Airport, at the ports and elsewhere by the system as it works at present, which needed to be ended. But I do think that to be able to justify this very radical change in the Bill and in the principles which had previously been adopted by the Government, it is essential to show that they have provided adequate arrangements in the country of origin for two purposes. The first is to examine the applications for entry certificates and ensure that the examination is fair and seen to be fair. The second is to make

sure that there is an adequate system of appeal which is easily accessible to the immigrants and again is not only fair but seen to be fair.
I do not make the criticisms made by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite about the small number of offices in the countries of origin or the distances that persons may have to travel. When people are taking the very great step of removing their domicile to a distant country, they are probably prepared to travel a long way to make the necessary arrangements.
But the difficulty arises with the kind of inquiry that has to be made in a case of this kind. We have all dealt with many cases or read about them in the newspapers. The inquiries are mainly about the exact age of a person or about establishing the identity of a person. Both things may require not one visit but several visits and certainly very detailed inquiries from the control post with the applicant and probably members of his family and others of his acquaintance. I have not heard descriptions of the kind of arrangements that will be made to satisfy me that it will not be very much more difficult for the immigrants to establish their identity or age and to acquire their entry certificates than at present.
Ideally no more immigrants should be able to come under this arrangement nor any less than at present, but I suspect that a number less will be able to come because of the difficulties created for them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am interested, and I know of my hon. Friend's practical knowledge of this. Could he elaborate a point? At the moment only a small proportion of immigrants from Pakistan come with entry certificates, but others apply for them and go through the procedure, a large number with little bother, with no appeal system. Why should it be more difficult to convince the entry certificate officer in Rawalpindi, say, who will, in most cases, be a seconded immigration officer, than if he were doing the same job at London Airport?

Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend raises a point that I was going to make. The immigration officer at London Airport has an extremely difficult task. But one point


in his mind is that if he refuses a certificate he has to compel the immigrant to travel all the way back to the country of origin, with all the hardship and expense that may be involved. In these circumstances he is more prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the person than will be the officer in the country of origin.
It may be said that some people get in who should not, but I doubt whether this is so. I suspect that the present may be a more humane system than the proposed one. I think that many of the officers in the countries of origin may require a much more conclusive standard of proof than is required now. I can visualise cases in which it is found extremely difficult for the families and dependants to establish their identity or age to the satisfaction of the immigration officers.
These arguments apply even more strongly to the question of appeals. My hon. Friend must agree that at first sight it is an extraordinary system of appeals that is established under which the dependant who wishes to try to get a decision of this kind reversed is unable in normal circumstances himself to appear and present his case in person. It will be extremely difficult for him to instruct lawyers in an adequate manner. We are dealing with people who are often of a not very high standard of education. The appeal is conducted at a distance of 5,000 to 6,000 miles from where they are situated. It will be difficult in those circumstances for them to conduct their appeal in a way which satisfies them that they have been given a fair deal and that justice has been done to them.
11.30 p.m.
I and most hon. Members accept the principle of going over to the system of entry certificates if the Government can convince us that they have provided for the applicant, in the first place, a thoroughly fair system of presenting his application, and having it heard fairly, and, second, a thoroughly fair system of hearing his appeal. But I am not at all convinced that the kind of system set out in the Clause will provide such a fair arrangement either on application or on appeal. Above all, it must be proved to be a system which will convince people in the countries of origin that they have a fair deal. What must concern us in

the House is whether we are providing a system as fair as that which we are replacing and as that which the Government intended to introduce by the Bill as they first presented it. I am a little doubtful on the point and I shall be grateful if in his reply my hon. Friend will clarify some of the issues which I have set out.

Mr. John Hunt: I welcome and support the entry certificate system, which, on the whole, is a sensible and humane arrangement, but I am concerned about the interim period between now and when the new system is fully under way.
In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), the Minister told us that the entry certificate procedure need not necessarily apply to those who are in the pipeline—that is, on their way here. But I understand—and perhaps he will confirm it—that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which will be much concerned with this scheme, has been given an assurance that there will be one month's grace for the new system to come into operation. It feels that even that month will not be sufficient for it to establish the kind of appeal machinery which it wants to encourage in the Indian sub-continent.
I therefore ask the hon. Member to comment specifically on that point and to tell us, if he can, whether he feels able to be a little flexible in the matter. We know the difficulties and I appreciate the dangers of a flood to which he referred, but it is important to establish good will in the matter, and I therefore hope that it will be possible for him to be rather more flexible than he indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend's intervention.
I echo the doubts which have been expressed about the adequacy of the four centres in India and four in Pakistan. I have not studied the map, but I am assured that in many cases it means that intending entrants to this country will have to travel between 200 and 1,000 miles. That is a very long distance. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will keep an open mind on this issue and that if, after the system has been in operation, he receives representations, he will see his way clear to establish more centres in order to facilitate dealing with applications which are made. I hope that in his


reply the Minister will give some reassurance on those points.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This is not the time of night to discuss a subject as important as this and I will keep my remarks as short as possible.
I neither support nor oppose this suggestion. In the words of Mr. Asquith, I am prepared to wait and see. In theory there is much to be said for this system. In theory it should not mean any reduction in the number of dependants who come to this country. It should simply be a more humane and efficient way of determining their right of entry. Therefore, there is something to be said for it. I have no doubt that between them the Front Benches will adequately put the advantages of the proposed system and the disadvantages of the present system.
I want to dwell on the disadvantages of the proposed system. I am left with some reservations. An appeals system where the decision has to be made at the port of entry has the virtue of immediacy of treatment. The moment the decision is reported to the applicant, he can go to the tribunal through the adjudicator, and the matter can be dealt with swiftly. Swiftness is an essential part of justice.
An additional important element is that he presents his case orally. I have occasionally had to look at some of the appeals brought under the National Insurance Regulations by constituents of mine to the National Insurance Commissioner in London. Such appeals are dealt with entirely on paper. There is often such a great difference between the Commissioner's finding of fact and the facts as I see them when I interview the appellant that I am struck by the great difference between an oral hearing and a written application. Such a system when it is transferred thousands of miles to a different continent, and when it takes place between people who are basically illiterate and a highly sophisticated lawyer in London, is likely to lead to a diminution of the effectiveness of the system which it is proposed to introduce. An argument for an appeals system on the style proposed by the Wilson Committee loses its attractiveness when decisions are to be announced in countries of origin and the appeal is to be made in writing.
The aspect that worries me most—this is a fear which I voiced in an inadequate way when the Home Secretary made his announcement—is the rôle of the Advisory Committee. The important rôle of this body was featured in the Report of the Clarke Committee and foreshadowed in the Report of the Wilson Committee. The whole idea of the Advisory Committee has been foreshadowed by the valuable work of voluntary agencies such as the Joint Council, I.S.S., and the N.C.C.L. All these bodies have in a comparatively short time developed a considerable amount of experience in dealing with these difficult cases in distressing circumstances. There was a hope that if there was to be an appeals procedure set into the system, these people with their experience would be able to take the maximum advantage of it on behalf of immigrants.
The rôle of the Advisory Committee is very limited. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the intention of two of the main organisations to continue their support. I notice that the N.C.C.L. has withdrawn, for reasons which I can appreciate. What is required is a much more effective advisory committee in the countries of origin than seems possible on the funds which are likely to be made available. High Commissions should desirably provide staff to advise those who have been refused entry certificates, but this is an expensive undertaking. It seems that we have the worst of all possible worlds in the advice which may be tendered to the intending immigrant. It is true that he will be in his country of origin and against his own domestic background and able to talk to local friends or his local headman or even, if that is his situation, to a lawyer, in his own language, and there are advantages in that.
But there are grave disadvantages in his not having an amicus curiae who actually knows the procedure and intimately knows the personalities and so on. Many of these things which are an exercise in discretion are dependent upon an intimate knowledge of the procedure and of the personalities involved, and my fear is that too many refusals will be given when the applicant will not know how to appeal, or to whom to appeal.
It is true that he will have his relative in this country who may be able to initiate proceedings from here, and that is why I say that I am prepared to wait and see, because the upshot of this experiment should be that ultimately there will be no reduction in the number of immigrants.
But how we are to tell that I do not know. The number of dependants coming to this country fell last year by 20 per cent. If it falls by 20 per cent., or even more, in the coming year, I do not know how we shall be able to tell whether that is caused by the natural decline in the number of dependants who might be likely to come or by this system. The only way in which we shall ever know is by making a detailed investigation on the spot, and therefore I support any suggestion which may be made for an investigation by an independent source.
The Select Committee would be highly desirable for this and I hope that it will take it upon itself in the coming Session to see how the system is working. If the upshot is, as my hon. Friend claims, that there is no reduction in the number, but that decisions are made more effectively and humanely, I shall do nothing but support this proposal.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) suggested that this might be the prelude to a phasing operation for the entry of dependants. I am sure that he was making that suggestion with the intention of causing some concern on this side of the House. If I thought that there was any truth in that suggestion, there would certainly be some expression of concern on this side of the House. Again, we will wait and see. If it happens, the Government will be in for a very rough time.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I approve of this Amendment, but I join whole heartedly with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in deploring the hour at which it has been introduced. I also join with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in deploring the stage of the Bill at which it has been introduced.
However, I agree with the Under-Secretary that an international airport is the least desirable place for checking the

credentials of a potential immigrant. The system which we have operated for the last seven years has caused the maximum hardship to intending settlers. It has also been the system most designed to stir up political and racial antagonisms.
Every person rejected becomes a cause célèbre in his country of origin, or the community to which he hoped to go. After seven years of operating the system we are still left without adequate accommodation for those whose credentials we wish to check further. While it may be insane to wish to come and live in this country, I see no reason why it should be treated as a criminal offence and why those who wish to enter and whose credentials have to be checked should be sent to prison.
Therefore, on humane grounds, I support the introduction of the entry certificate system. The present system has the advantage of immediacy. One of the best ways of stopping people entering a country when they are not wanted is just not to deal with their application. This has happened to me in recent years. On occasions I have wished to visit North Vietnam and have written to President Ho Chi Minh asking for permission to enter his country. I have never received any reply and have been unable to visit the country. He has not turned me down, he has just not replied.
This can well apply now. Last year, 48,000 dependants came here. When we pass this new Clause, as I assume we will, without further reference to Parliament it would be possible for a Home Secretary to reduce that flow to 4,800 or even 408. The Under-Secretary has said that there is no intention of using the new Clause to reduce the flow of dependants. It is a political platitude these days to say that Home Secretaries can change. The other day, while opening a reception centre for women ex-convicts, the Home Secretary said that Home Secretaries do not go on for ever. No doubt the present Home Secretary will not go on forever. He might be replaced by someone who wished to dramatically reduce the number of dependants entering the country.
Then, without reference to the House, he need only reduce the number of people at the High Commission offices dealing with entry certificate applications.


He could say that the office would be open from twelve to one each day but would be staffed by one man who, alas, suffered from some tropical illness which meant that he would be absent for six months of the year. With no further reference to Parliament, purely by administrative means, the flow of dependants from India and Pakistan could be reduced to 100 a year, or even nil, merely by holding up their applications forever.
This is a profound change in our legal system, and is not one that we should be dealing with at this stage of a Bill and this late hour. Why has this happened? I do not believe that the Home Office introduced it in this way because it wished to cheat in a Parliamentary fashion. I think that it introduced it because it has realised that the warning I gave on Second Reading was right. I said that the result of setting up an appeal system would be that whereas immigration officers at London Airport had previously leant over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to those who arrived, because they realised the hardship that would otherwise be involved, they would now lean over backwards the other way and say, "We have some doubt. Let it go forward through the appeal machinery." So, instead of 1,200 people being turned back, as happened last year, there might well be 10,000 or 12,000 cases going to appeal each year under the system envisaged. I think that the Home Office realised this fairly late and realised that administratively it could not cope. Therefore, it finally introduced this vastly important Amendment, which changes the whole nature of the Bill.
I acquit the Home Office of trying to cheat, but this has happened before. We have had Bills introduced by the Government which have changed their nature greatly by Amendments suddenly introduced at a very late stage. It just crosses my mind that hon. Members opposite might wonder whether this could happen with any Bill dealing with industrial disputes that might be introduced in the weeks ahead.

Miss Lestor: In the early hours of the morning, not too long ago, we debated a Measure that I opposed on the question of Asian immigrants from Kenya. I opposed it because I felt that it was a concession to racialism, and I still hold that view.
Tonight, also at a very late hour, we are debating immigration again, but I do not believe that this Measure is a concession to racialism. I do not believe that it is a concession to some of the pressures that I know are continually put on the Home Office to do something about the number of people illegally entering the country. If I did, I would not have given it the qualified support I give it.
I share the anxieties that have been rightly voiced tonight on the question of adequate machinery being set up in the countries from which dependants of Commonwealth citizens come. It is clear that had the recommendations of the Wilson Committee been implemented in the way suggested some of the misery at London Airport would have been avoided.
Some of the Bill is not as vital or fundamental as it was before the Amendment was introduced. That must be clear, since the method of appeal and the need for appeal will be somewhat different. But I accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the intentions behind it are humane, and that it is not an attempt to try to reduce numbers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that we shall watch what takes place afterwards with great interest. This was why I welcomed the obvious enthusiasm of the Under Secretary on the suggestion that there should be a means of overseeing how this works out in the months ahead.
The number of dependants has been referred to by one or two hon. Members opposite, as well as by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The question of 48,000 dependants who have been coming into this country must be related to the fact that 50 per cent. of them, according to the Home Office, belong to Commonwealth immigrants who came here before 1964. Therefore, the number of dependants in relation to the number of work vouchers issued is falling and is bound to fall. I understand that for every work voucher that is issued, roughly four dependants are now allowed into this country.
I have not time to go into the question of aliens, but it is crucial to this matter. My hon. Friend spoke about the differences between aliens and Commonwealth citizens. It is true that Commonwealth citizens have the right to bring in their dependants and that aliens may bring in theirs. In practice, aliens bring in their dependants with very little difficulty. The differences between the two in that respect may be one of right and one of discretion but, nevertheless, in practice they work out precisely the same. It would be quite unfair if this Measure were seen to put Commonwealth citizens in relation to their dependants at a great disadvantage.
What is to happen particularly in the countries from which dependants come? I underline that it is on this aspect that those of us who have this matter in our constituencies will, naturally, be very interested to see how it works out, because in trying to set up adequate machinery in a country where travelling arrangements are exceedingly difficult, where illiteracy exists and where an illiterate can be charged as much as £40 for having a letter written by a scribe, the question of how to set up adequate machinery both for the obtaining of cerficates and appealing against their non-issue is of crucial importance. If we find that there is a reduction in the number of dependants coming into this country, clearly the system will not have worked.
I do not think that the misery at London Airport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred, has ever been given enough attention by many hon. Members. Some of us have been aware of it for a long time. It is something of which many of us have been ashamed when we have seen it.
Some people have come into this country who may not have had a right to come in; they may not have been dependants within the meaning of the Act. It is also true—and all of us who have had anything to do with this know it to be true—that many people have been sent back to their country of origin when they were dependants of the people of whom they claimed to be dependants. Their documentation was not in order, it was not possible to establish their relationship and, therefore, they were sent

back when they had the right to come in.
If that can be dealt with in the country of origin before the dependants come here, the Amendment will be a humane measure and will contribute something to removing what has been a stigma at London Airport and other places where, for example, a young Pakistani girl was nine weeks in prison while one tried to establish whether she was the dependant of the person whose dependant she claimed to be.
These situations have made myself and others come to the conclusion that whilst we operate our system of immigration, we must find the most humane method of ensuring that dependants do not suffer the indignities and misery that many have suffered at London Airport and other places of entry.
We will watch progress with interest. I am sure that this is not a concession to racialism. It is an attempt to deal with the problem in a humane fashion. If this involves public expenditure, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported the new Clause will not criticise the Government for spending more money in an endeavour to be fair and humane than they would have spent on the implementation of the Wilson recommendations, or than is now being spent.

12 m.

Mr. John Page: The longer this debate continues the more I realise how wrong it is that this matter should be dealt with so late at night and so late during the progress of the Bill.
The Amendment turns the Bill into the "Immigration Non-Appeals Bill." The entry certificate system is likely to be more humane and fairer than the present system, and in this I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). It would be much better for a United Kingdom citizen wishing to take up, for instance, permanent settlement in Turkey to be able to discuss his documentation and entry certificate in this country and arrive in Turkey with the documentation in his hand.
Only in the matter of appeals does the system appear to be inadequate. To make the Amendment a real part of the Bill there must be a genuine appeals system built into the programme in the overseas territory. There needs to be a


proper system of appeal to independent lawyers, possibly independent British lawyers attached to the High Commission.
Administration of the system abroad may involve a danger of forgery and an even greater danger of the transference of entry certificates. The Home Office will have to work out how to overcome the danger of an entry certificate issued to one person being presented at the port or airport of departure by another person.
I would draw the attention of the Home Office to the personal export scheme—the Under-Secretary is looking surprised, but this is not a trivial suggestion—whereby the documentation for an article purchased in this country is married up with the article at the port of departure. There is an opportunity here for counterfoils of the documents to be married up at the port of departure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me; he is one of my constituents, and I particularly wish to keep in touch with him. Documents could be married up with a counterfoil at the point of departure.
The Under-Secretary did not mention the cost of this scheme. It has been said that the cost of the appeal system set out in the Bill would be about £500,000. The cost of appeals in this country under the new entry certificate scheme is likely to be lower than expected. There will probably be fewer appeals here if screening is done in the country of origin. I suggest that we might find ourselves with 48,000 new permanent settlers. If each entry certificate were charged for, in the same way as visas are often charged for abroad—at, say, £5 for each individual—we could arrange to gather, in the countries abroad, about £240,000 to go towards the cost of setting up a really good, fair, and watertight system, including a system of appeals, which is a possibility that we should consider.
There is no reason why the British taxpayer should have to pay £250,000 to overseas countries for the cost of setting up this new system. We have not had an estimate, and that is as good a one as I can get. I seriously ask the Home Office to consider making a charge for entry certificates as a way of defraying the cost of this new system to the British taxpayer.

Mr. William Wilson: Because of the large Indian and Pakistani communities in Coventry the Amendment raises a real constituency problem for me. It must have occurred to other hon. Members who have such large communities within their electorates that there was a better way of dealing with the situation than the existing one. It was because of that that when I went to India last year I made it my duty to make inquiries on the spot about the situation there and the possibility of improving the system so that the distress and upset so often caused when individuals came to this country could be eliminated.
As a result of the inquiries that I made on the spot I have come to the conclusion that making this sort of entry certificate available in the country of origin is a far better way of dealing with the situation than the one that we are operating now; so much so that ever since I came back from India I have told all those Indians and Pakistanis who have asked me what was the best thing for their relatives to do if they wanted to come here to join my constituents, "Tell them to go to the point of origin—the High Commissioner's office—and get an entry certificate before they come." I am satisfied that this is the better way.
The present system undoubtedly plays into the hands of the unscrupulous airlines and travel agents. The Amendment will go a long way towards providing a solution to this difficult problem.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) has given his constituents good advice in telling them to tell their relatives to obtain their entry certificates before embarking on their journey here and spending a great deal of money on their air fare, but there is a great difference between doing this voluntarily—as the hon. Member recommends to his constituents—and making it compulsory, as the Home Secretary intends. I cannot understand why there is so little realisation among hon. Members that we are concerned with matters of principle and not questions of detail.
I thought that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) came nearest to the truth when he pointed out that administrative action by future Home


Secretaries could drastically alter the position of dependants in Commonwealth countries without any change in the legislation, especially if we have somebody who is less liberal than the present Home Secretary—if I may put it that way—by merely reducing the number of persons who deal with the applications of Pakistanis or Indians, or by arranging it so that they are present only at certain hours of the day which are inconvenient to applicants, with the result that many people have to wait in the queue, with none being dealt with from one year to the next.
This is the kind of consideration which hon. Members should have had in their minds. Unfortunately, it came here so late that we have had practically no opportunity to obtain advice either from the organisations which defend the interests of the immigrants and their families or from the Commonwealth countries principally concerned.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South said that he visited India last year. Since the Clause was tabled, has he been able to obtain the advice of the High Commissioner in India? Has the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—I was surprised to hear that she was perfectly happy with this situation—been able to consult the immigrant organisations in her constituency?
I have had some discussions only with the National Council for Civil Liberties, with which I am closely concerned. It is wholly dissatisfied with this Clause and has expressed its objections in the strongest possible terms in the memorandum which it has sent to hon. Members. In particular, it says that the Clause came so late that public discussion on the issue has been effectively stifled. We, in this House and in another place, have been prevented from raising objections in time to influence the final draft of the Bill. This is a fundamental point of principle. As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, how often will legislation be altered in its nature in the last stages, when we have practically no time to take into consideration the important issues involved?
I know that the Under-Secretary is humane and liberal. I have had a great deal of discussion with him about the difficult problems which we face with

dependants arriving at London Airport and other points of entry without valid documentation. I recently drew to his attention the tragic case of a young boy from Kashmir who arrived at the airport in February. The story was that his mother had died in Kashmir and he was coming to join his father and stepmother who were living in Birmingham. The immigration officer said that he did not believe the evidence produced by the boy, who was aged 11, that the mother had died. There were two affidavits from people who said that they had attended her funeral and a certificate signed by the equivalent of the chairman of the council in the boy's village, and a sworn statement which the father had made before a commissioner for oaths in Birmingham—which, unfortunately, he subsequently altered.
But the point is that the customs and background of people seeking to enter this country are not the same as those of our own people and one cannot apply the same standards. I was convinced, after looking through the documentation in this case, that the facts were as set out, even though the papers which had been produced in support of the statement could be called wholly unsatisfactory by British standards. This young boy spent from February until the middle of last week in detention at London Airport.
I agree with the Under-Secretary, whose opinion I know it to be, that this was tragic and wholly unnecessary, but I wonder whether, in introducing a new Clause designed to deal with cases of this kind, we have not overlooked the fact that the Bill itself is not yet in operation. There is no such thing as an appeals machinery which could have enabled this kind of case to be dealt with far more expeditiously than by taking it through the High Court, and by applications to an hon. Member and the Home Secretary and his Department, with last minute delays of 24 hours while the Under-Secretary could reconsider it. Suppose that we had had this appeals machinery, which is the purpose of the Bill. Would these tragic cases not have been avoided? I hope that we have not anticipated matters by taking panic action at this late stage which might have proved unnecessary had we waited to gain experience of the operation of the Bill.
12.15 a.m.
I have so far dealt with matters of principle. Although some important matters of detail have been raised, I will not delay the House by reiterating them. Am I right in assuming that the people who will be considering applications in the countries of origin will be on the staff of the immigration service?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: indicated assent.

Mr. Lubbock: Assuming that the proposed machinery will be set up—I must assume that since the hon. Member for Beckenham said that the Amendment would not be taken to a vote; I suppose that at this late hour few hon. Members would be available to vote against the proposal, although I would be delighted to do so—may we be assured that those who will vet the applications in India and Pakistan will have knowledge of the customs and habits of the people of those countries?
It would be wrong to send out an immigration officer who has done a three-month stint at London Airport, or an officer whose experience is confined to dealing with immigrants here, and expect such a person to deal with sympathy and understanding with cases arising in remote parts of the Indian sub-continent. I am not criticising the immigration service as a whole. While, overall, it does a good job, in individual cases I have had to pass some strictures on their conduct.
If we are to establish a remote service which will not be under the scrutiny of, for example, the National Council for Civil Liberties, we must ensure that those who will be acting on our behalf have knowledge and experience of the countries in which they are operating.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When moving the Amendment I dealt with most of the points that have been raised subsequently. If, in replying to the discussion, I overlook matters of substance, I will write to the hon. Members concerned explaining the position.
I assure the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the Bill as a whole is not a modest Measure. The appeals procedure represents a fundamental change in the treatment of immigrants, and that is still the position. The

change which we propose was not determined a long time ago. Indeed, it was finally decided only on the day when my right hon. Friend announced it to the House.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised a number of interesting points, and I assure him that no panic is involved. The whole matter was considered for months, and only on the day that the decision was announced was the issue finally decided. After all, there is nothing to panic about. In terms of the numbers of immigrants coming here, we have constantly been pointing out that the figures are falling.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) should be sneering. In the last six months I have spoken with his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about this subject on many occasions, which is more than I can say for him. This has been a question of dealing in a humane way with a situation that could be dealt with only by legislation.

Mr. Lubbock: When I used the word "panic" I was referring not to the number of immigrants but to cases involving young children being detained for long periods at London Airport, cases which might have been avoided if the Bill had been in operation.

Mr. Rees: Those cases certainly influenced us in this matter.
Several hon. Members referred to the issuing of entry certificates. There will be no question of an extremely long examination. I should point out to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that it will not be a certificate as such but a stamp in one's passport.
Reinforcement of staff is confined to India and Pakistan. The primary grade will be entry certificate officer. We shall send ten extra and that will double the number. With ancillary staff it will cost £50,000 but that will save what would otherwise have been spent in this country.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that my right hon. Friend has discretion which will be used in the short run but afterwards only in the most unusual cases. I point out to him again that there is not a vast increase in the numbers coming in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) mentioned the question of transport costs and we shall be dealing with the subject of carriers later. We should otherwise have had much greater expense, because we were getting to the point of a small Ellis Island in the neighbourhood of London Airport.
I advise the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, who has come to the subject again—

Mr. Pardoe: What exactly does the hon. Gentleman mean by my coming to the subject again? Does it mean that hon. Members can speak only on a subject on which they have spoken before? Can he not contain himself and his temper a little?

Mr. Rees: All those hon. Gentlemen who spoke had read the Wilson Report and knew what they were talking about. The hon. Gentleman did not come into that category. If he wants some reading, let him read paragraphs 75 to 81, and especially paragraph 72 of the Report, and all his questions will be answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) made the profound point that some immigrants would not get through as a result of examination at overseas posts. But the entry certificate officers will know that those whom they turn down will appeal to lawyers here, and that will concentrate their minds to some degree if they are tending to slip up. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) spoke on the same point.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for her support because I know that she, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), has a great deal of expertise in the matter.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) spoke of Hanoi. The great difference is that if he could have written to the Member for Hanoi he might have got something done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that most people write to my right hon. Friend and to me, and a great deal can be done in that respect, and will continue to be done. To draw a comparison with North Vietnam in this respect, if in no other, is the wrong thing to do this evening. What we are

doing is right, and I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

LIABILITY OF OWNERS OR AGENTS OF SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF PERSONS DIRECTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 13, line 16—

"B.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where directions are given under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1962 for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which he arrived shall be liable to pay to the Secretary of State, on demand, any expenses incurred by the latter in respect of the custody, accommodation or maintenance of that person at any time after his arrival while he was detained or liable to be detained under paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to expenses in respect of a person who, when he arrived in the United Kingdom, held a current entry certificate or was the person described in a current employment voucher; and for the purposes of this subsection a document purporting to be such a certificate or voucher shall be treated as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent.
(3) If a person is admitted into the United Kingdom before the directions for his removal have been carried out, or he is so admitted thereafter in consequence of the determination in his favour of an appeal under Part I of this Act (being an appeal against a refusal of admission by virtue of which the directions were given or against the directions themselves), no sum shall be demanded under subsection (1) of this section for expenses incurred in respect of that person and any such sum already demanded and paid shall be refunded.
(4) In subsection (1) of this section 'directions' does not include directions which by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act have ceased to have effect or are for the time being of no effect; and the expenses to which that subsection applies include expenses in conveying the person in question to and from the place where he is detained or accommodated unless the journey is made for the purpose of attending an appeal by him under Part I of this Act.
(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council under section 1 of the Aliens Restriction Act 1914 make provision in relation to aliens for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this section."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (1) authorises the Home Office, when a Commonwealth citizen has been refused admission and directions have been given for his removal, to recover from the carrying company the expenses incurred on his custody, accommodation and maintenance during the period after his arrival when he was detained or liable to be detained pending examination or removal.
Subsections (2) and (3) contain respectively an exception for cases in which the passenger held an entry certificate or employment voucher, and for cases in which the passenger is eventually admitted. In either case the expense of custody, accommodation and maintenance will be borne by public funds.
Subsection (4) prevents the making of a demand under subsection (1) in a case where directions for removal are in suspense pending an appeal, and provides that the cost of transporting the passenger to and from the place where he is staying for any purpose other than his attending an appeal hearing are to be recoverable under that subsection. The cost of transporting appellants to and from appeal hearings is to be met by the Home Office.
Subsection (5) enables corresponding provision in relation to aliens to be made by Order in Council under the Alien Restriction Acts. An Order will be made for this purpose immediately after the Bill becomes law.
The present law on the responsibility of a shipping company is in an unsatisfactory state. There have been discussions with the shipping and airline companies, and it would be idle for me to pretend that they agree with what is involved in the Clause.
My right hon. Friend considers it right to maintain the general principle that the carrying company is responsible both for removing a passenger to whom entry is refused and for his custody and maintenance until removal is effected.
This principle has been recognised in this country for nearly 70 years. It has undoubtedly given the carriers who bring immigrants on long-haul routes an incentive to avoid carrying passengers who are likely to be rejected.
The fact that virtually all passengers from the West Indies who are subject to immigration control arrive with entry

certificates is due in large measure to the attitude of the carrying companies. By safeguarding their own financial interest, these carriers are at the same time acting in the interests of their passengers, whose eligibility for admission is settled in advance, and they are also facilitating the operation of immigration control.
There are, however, concessions that we have made. The carrying companies will incur no financial responsibility if the passenger holds an employment voucher or entry certificate, or is eventually admitted to this country whether as a result of an appeal or otherwise. We believe this is the right thing to do, and I commend the Clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
'employment voucher' means a voucher of the kind described in section 2(3)(a) of the Act of 1962;".

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment supplies a definition of the term "employment voucher" which was used in the Government Amendment to Clause 9.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 30, after "(5)" insert
Sections (Power to refuse admission to wives and children under 16 if they do not hold entry certificates) and (Liability of owners or agents of ships and aircraft for expenses incurred in respect of persons directed to be removed from the United Kingdom) shall come into operation on the passing of this Act and the other provisions of".

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 22(5) in its present form empowers the Secretary of State to make orders fixing dates on which the various sections of the Bill are to come into operation. The effect of the Amendment


is that the new Clause mentioned in it will come into operation as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, without any commencement order having to be made by the Secretary of State. We have already explained this evening the reason for bringing the new Clause in at once.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING, NOTTING HILL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Notting Hill in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is a crisis area in which the long history of bad housing is taking its toll. The brunt of the overcrowding problem is borne by families of no greater than average size. In fact, this experience is general throughout the country.
The Interim Housing Survey, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, states in paragraph 147 on page 77
. that about 75 per cent. of all statutory overcrowding is accounted for by households with three children or less.
So we are dealing not with families where there is an excessive number of children but with those in average circumstances.
North Kensington, or Notting Hill as it is widely known, has been a crisis area since the 1840s. The OFFICIAL REPORT in 1849 recorded
The majority of the houses are of the most wretched class, many being mere hovels in a ruinous condition, and are generally densely populated.
In 1856 a Ministry of Health Report referred to
One of the most deplorable spots, not only in Kensington, but in the whole Metropolis.
Finally, the census report of 1969 reads:
Single room lettings in multi-occupied dwellings between 1951 and 1961 more than doubled in North Kensington.
In addition to the appalling housing circumstances, there is a notable absence of social provision. In fact, from a visit there any one can see clearly that squalor prevails generally.
The area which is now the Golborne Ward, in which the worst overcrowding occurs, was built to provide accommodation for the working class in the 1860s. Added to the physical deterioration of the properties, it has been a focal point and "reception area" in which the underprivileged have congregated. This has happened over a very long period. Conditions there are not the result of recent immigration, which cannot be pleaded in mitigation.
The Notting Hill Summer Project 1967, the Interim Report, which has given rise to this debate, is founded upon the devoted work of a large number of people, some of whom give their whole time to community activity in Notting Hill. This project grew out of the Community Work Shop founded by George Clark in 1965 and formed part of the Notting Hill Social Council. This had been founded earlier in 1960 to keep together all the social agencies in the area and flourishes today under the leadership of the Rev. David Mason. Miss Illys Booker was actively involved in community development work until her death last January at the early age of 41. The Council also sponsored the Notting Hill Adventure Playground, in which Mr. Pat Smythe plays a leading role. It is interesting to visit it and see the facilities developed there.
The more recently formed Notting Hill Housing Service set up as the result of the Summer Project and the survey which has been produced aims to provide an advisory service to tenants in the area with a view to ensuring that they have information about their statutory rights and that it is available to all residents of the area. The chairman of this service is Mr. Donald Chesworth and the director is George Clark.
This Interim Report "Notting Hill Summer Project" is the result of a survey conducted in August, 1967, a highly organised operation which included 150 interviewers, necessary for organising a detailed scrutiny of the coverage and accuracy of the questionnaires.
The cost of carrying out and organising the interviewing was about £3,000, all of which was raised by public appeal, much of it being contributed by the volunteers themselves. The Summer Project as a whole cost about £4,000. The data processing was conducted by the social research unit at Sussex University, financed


out of grants made by the Nuffield Foundation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The interviewers were all volunteers, the majority being undergraduates from some 18 universities.
The Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has the highest density of population in London, 72·3 persons per acre, and is the smallest London borough in terms of land area. Notting Hill, which comprises North Kensington, has no fewer than 134 persons to the acre. Paragraph 30 on page 13 of the report states:
Nearly three quarters of all household spaces are privately rented … the sharpest contrast of all between the Kensington and Chelsea tenure pattern and circumstances elsewhere is the large percentage of furnished accommodation, nearly 35 per cent. against the national average of 2 per cent. and an average of 4 per cent. for Greater London as a whole.
This highlights the particular circumstances to which I wish to draw attention.
This, as will be well known, is the area of multi-occupation and exploitation where Rachman ran his disastrous course. In a report to the Royal Borough Council, the planning committee on 10th December last, referring to the Golborne and Colville areas, said that they:
have become a reservoir of cheap privately rented accommodation, the houses are divided inadequately into furnished rooms, furnished and unfurnished flats without additional sanitary and other amenities.
In Golborne, children make up nearly one-third of the population and as such are the major sufferers from the inadequate housing and other services. It is deprivation in terms not only of living accommodation, education and health but of a quality of life which is a reflection on our society.
The Government's recently announced urban programme—and I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the reply which he gave me to Questions on these subjects—was designed to give emergency assistance to areas of grave need. In a Parliamentary Question on 30th January, 1969, the Home Office announced—as reported in columns 365 and 366 of HANSARD—that under the first phase of the urban programme the project approved for Kensington was a children's home provided at a figure of £53,000. This is a highly desirable scheme, but it is one of the smallest allo-

cations of capital sums in the list of approved capital projects, in the Greater London area.
It is clear in the reply from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to my Written Question of 11th February, 1969, that nothing further is planned for Kensington but that consideration is being given to what projects might be included in the latter phases of the programme. This is but a crumb of comfort to those having to cope with the problems in Notting Hill.
I will refer only briefly to the implications for race relations. These are important. In fact, 26·9 per cent. of the residents of Kensington and Chelsea were born outside the United Kingdom. In North Kensington the largest group born outside the United Kingdom are West Indians—16·1 per cent. Of this group, 63·5 per cent. live in furnished lodgings in multiple-occupied accommodation. On average they pay much more than United Kingdom-born residents by way of rent. About one-third of the West Indians pay £6 to £7 a week in rent for grossly overcrowded conditions. We read in paragraph 102 on page 51 of the Initial Housing Survey,
Coloured families pay more for their accommodation than do white families.
I turn to the Government's housing policy. This comment applies not only to the policies which have been followed by the present Government but to those followed by Conservative Administrations, too.
Despite the initiatives which both parties have taken in housing, little is being achieved in improving housing standards throughout the country and, indeed, nothing in such places as Notting Hill. On the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill on 15th December, 1966, the Minister said:
The basis of our housing policy is twofold—first, to overcome the immediate and appalling need for more houses to let at reasonable rents, and, secondly, to help people to own their own homes. Our new Bill is based on that policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 666.]
The Housing Bill, 1969, which has just completed its Committee stage, contains proposals for new and increased grants for the acquisition, improvement and conversion of older houses and the areas in which they are situated. In my view, again, this will not help places such as


Notting Hill; it will make no contribution to the circumstances there.
The problems are those experienced in a score or so of black spots or crisis areas throughout the country. In a recent visit to Liverpool with the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, I saw conditions in one such area—District 8—and although it is not comparable in physical terms, because of the clearance areas in London, the properties which remain in that area are over-occupied and in multiple occupation similar to those found in Notting Hill. I see that Mr. Cutler, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the G.L.C., speaking in Hammersmith Town Hall today at the annual regional conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council is reported to have said:
I believe there are much worse places in London than Notting Hill.
I mention those areas but I am sure—and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will agree with me in this respect, particularly with his knowledge of London—that there are other areas in London in which this deplorable state of affairs exists, as, indeed, it exists in other cities, particularly those which bore the brunt of the Industrial Revolution. Surely it is time we turned the direction of subsidies in the housing field to selected areas such as these rather than distributing on a non-selective basis, encouraging local authority building where needs are nothing like as great, leaving the crisis areas such as Notting Hill comparatively untouched.
We need a system of comprehensive renewal techniques across both the public and the private sectors and all that that term implies in clearance, rebuilding and renovation and conversion—a task, I think, beyond the capacity of the housing authorities in which these great problems exist. I listened with interest to the speech earlier today by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. George Rogers), in whose constituency Notting Hill lies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a measure of this problem is beyond the capacity of the borough. This is not a reflection on the borough itself. It is really an emphasis of the degree of the problem with which it is faced.
Where these circumstances exist in London, clearly the help of the G.L.C.

is required, particularly to meet the requirements for re-housing which are essentially associated with urban renewal. Urban renewal on this basis calls for a much broader concept of the function of the local housing authorities.
My plea is for a recognition of the limited number of intensely deprived areas, which I think it would not be difficult to identify, and for a concentration of resources for housing, education and social need, the initiative for which must come from the Government. The only effective policy is a concentration of resources, which I am sure would be acceptable to the country as a whole, and offer hope to those who are living out their lives in the appalling conditions clearly demonstrated in this Report.
I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to those responsible for the Notting Hill Summer Project, not only those engaged on the inquiry for the Report, but the many members of the voluntary bodies in Notting Hill which are tackling the serious housing and social conditions which are found there—a continuing commitment for many of them. Those responsible for this invaluable work and the hopes they have for future inquiries and programmes cannot be maintained by voluntary effort alone, although they are, perhaps, best organised by people using the voluntary principle. It is hoped that the Government will feel that they can help the Project in its future work—the Government have helped in the past, but further assistance is required—with both money and resources so that a true partnership between these voluntary organisations and Government can be maintained and extended. A new kind of community coalition is in a formative stage, and it is hoped that the Government will give what encouragement and help they can.

12.43 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) in the tribute he paid to the very devoted work put in by those who organised the survey. As he and I know from organising elections, there is nothing more difficult than organising voluntary workers and getting them to work effectively. It was a very remarkable piece of


organisation that the Project was able to do that. It has produced a very valuable insight into the problems of this area, problems which people who know London, and particularly that part of West London, would not find surprising, although they find the details extremely important and absorbing.
If I were to make any criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it would be that he called for a revision of subsidies and for a new and comprehensive approach to urban problems but did not show any indication that he was aware of what the existing powers are that could be used. It is a little unfair to both the previous and the present Government to imply that nothing has been done to improve the legislation and fashion an instrument to do an effective job. The 1961 Act, of which I was a very severe critic, the 1964 Act, which was very much better, and our present Bill, which I hope will become the 1969 Act, together provide many opportunities for the detailed work both of obtaining effective management by management orders on multi-occupied property and of registering it to keep it under control, putting a limit on the numbers in a house, and preventing others taking the place of those who move out. These are important problems which a local authority should tackle.
The problem of clearing and redeveloping an area of intense overcrowding is not insoluble. The ward in Paddington which I represented for many years, only a short distance from the ward with which we are now concerned, was as bad as any part of London. It had the highest infantile mortality rate in London. There was appalling overcrowding in the whole area. That has been redeveloped and today there is very little left of the horrible problems that existed before the war. This was done very largely by the London County Council taking the area over and using its resources to re-develop the area.
If that were the only problem involved I do not think it would be difficult to tackle much more of Kensington than has been tackled, but there is still the difficult problem of what happens to the people. As long as there is a densely overcrowded population one must find somewhere to re-house people. That is the most difficult problem in the

mechanics of the work, but I should have thought that local government in London could tackle it. London local government has been re-organised. London is not an area like Liverpool, which the hon. Gentleman quoted. My constituency is on Merseyside, and I know the difficulties, where there has not been a reorganisation of local government, of obtaining sites for dealing with overspill and so on. The previous Government decided that the Greater London Council was an effective unit. It has immense resources of men, and technical resources, and the quality of its staff is high. It should not be beyond it to tackle the problems of the grossly overcrowded areas in the middle of the metropolis. It has a much less difficult problem, relatively, than some other parts of the country.
I do not want to take time in criticising the London borough, because I hope that it will be possible to persuade it to do rather more than it is doing. It has not been energetic in what it has done. In no year has it achieved its housing programme—not just what we should have liked it to do, but what it had undertaken to do. I agree that slum clearance, redevelopment and rebuilding do not solve all one's problems. Such action leaves many difficult ones, but it is something with which one must start.
My right hon. Friend has invited the G.L.C. and the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council to talk to him frankly about their problems and the weaknesses and lacunas in the legislation. From experience over many years I have told people that the time had arrived, under whatever government, when new housing legislation would be introduced and that the time to make constructive comments was then, not after the legislation had been passed. After the 1961 Act many people came along and asked for something better, more effective. We have gone to a great deal of trouble in the current legislation to deal with area improvements, to enable bigger grants to be paid. This provides substantial financial assistance.
The hon. Gentleman said we should concentrate particularly on the urban areas. To some extent that happens indirectly, because the fact that there is a cost yardstick which is very much


bigger for London than the rest of the country—and we are dealing with improving the grant conditions for older houses, particularly in London—means that a larger subsidy is paid for new house construction than in the rest of the country. The Government are already able to pay very much more. What is holding up house building is not the reluctance of the Government to give approvals, or any failure of the Government to provide contributions by subsidies. London has been a priority area ever since 1964. We have said that we shall be glad to see authorities building the maximum number of houses, and that we shall back them. I hope that they will act on this.
I do not under-estimate the difficulties. The resources available, in legislation, finance and skill are rather greater than the hon. Gentleman suggested. The important thing is to see how the most effective use can be made

of the existing legislation for dealing with multiple occupation, rent protection, prevention of harassment and so on. My right hon. Friend is anxious to co-operate with the G.L.C. and the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the local people, who have done so much devoted work. One of the things we mention in the legislation is that an improvement area should not be something laid down from the top, either by local authorities or by other outside people, but should be discussed and prepared by interested local societies and organisations. That is the way to get a real interest in these things. I hope that out of the unhappy and tragic situation revealed by this report we shall get a new desire and strength to take advantage of the resources available to solve some of these terrible problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.